Daily capital journal. (Salem, Oregon) 1903-1919, 1911-07-29

building. In this contention counsel
for defendants relies upon the rule
laid down In ROylance " San Luis
Hotel Company "A Cal, 273, but an
examination OF the opinion In that
case, at page 277, indicates that 1t is
based upon a statute differing from
ours. The reason for not allowing
the lien TO be filed prior 10 the com
pletion Of the building being that,
under the contract between the
owner and the contractor the owner
agrees TO pay the contractor a GER
tain sum for constructing the build
ing, and this sum is a fund which
may be held under the statutes for
the payment, 80 far as II will go, Of
all the claims Of all the various sub
contractors, for work and materials
furnished by them to the contractor,
who Is the principal and head Of all;
and all the parties entitled to pay
ment or contribution out of this
fund should be able to reach the
fund and get their proportlonate
shares thereof at the same time or
within the same period Of time" "
From the language used II would ap-
pear that this rule, following that
prescribed In Davis v. Bullard, 80
Kan, 234, Seaton v. Chamberlain, 80
Kan, 239, and contained In Sec.
1928, II Jones on Liens, is applicable
TO a different statute than ours.
Jones on Liens, Sec. 1882, states that
where there are distinct contracts
for different parts OF a building, as
for instance one contract to do all
the stone work and to furnish all
the material for the same, and an
other contract for the brick work,
and another for the wood work, each
contract must stand upon It's own
merits, and liens under the different
contracts must be filed within the
time limited from the time of the
completion Of the work under each
contract" This work Is instructive,
but neither Of the sections referred
to apply to our statute.
AS to the necessity for prompt en-
forcement, It is said in Phillips on
Mechanics Liens, Sec. 322: 1T has
been the policy Of nearly every state
which has established a system of
mechanics lien to protect the rights
OF owners and others who may be-
come Interested in the property by
requiring those who are entitled to
It's benefits to be prompt In the en-
forcement Of their claims. The priv
ileges secured mechanics and mater
ial men are unusual in their char
acter, effective and sometimes op-
presslye in their behalf, and It Is
only just that they should be re-
qulred to be dlllgent in their enforce
mcnt"
This reasoning and a careful ex-
animation Of our statute would indi-
cate that the lien for materials can
be filed at any time after the fur
nishing of the last material, and be-
fore the expiration of 30 days from
the completion of the building, when
the materials for its construction is
furnished to the contractor or sub
contractor in charge thereof who, by
See, 74l6, l., o. H.. shall be held tC
be the agent Of the owner for the
purposes OF this act" Such We
think, under the decisions construinp
the above mentioned statutes in Ain.
slie " Kohn, supSa. and Coffey v
Smith, supra, was the legislative in
tent. To hold that one furnishinp
material to the person having the
contract for the brick work Of a
building must, before filing his lien
wait until the other contractors