Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1913-12-14
MECHANICS LIEN LAW
INTERPRETED BY COURT
Justice Stafford Renders De-
CiSiOn of Interest to Dis
trict Builders.
Case Involves Liability of Bond
Surety When the Contract Is
Taken Over.

Justice Stafford in Equity Court No.
has rendered a decision I'm the case OF
Hazen-Latimer Company against Mahlon
A. Winter. Marion F. Piper. George w.
Faris and the Fidelity and Deposit Com
pany of Maryland which is considered
rather far reaching in it's effect upon
the mechanic lien law OF the District
The Hazen-Latimer Company claimed
in its bill that Piper made a contract
with Winter and Faris to erect an add
ton to the Winter building on u street
northwest for $4,000 for use as a
branch post Office and that it as a SUBJ
contractor under Piper agreed to do the
excavating work and install concrete
footings for SLIGO. Piper entered upon
the work and drew the first installment,
$3.50. of his pay. but abandoned the
contract and left the District without
paying his sub-contractors. il was stated.
The Fidelity and Deposit Company was
surety on the bond of Piper and upon
his default undertook the completion of
the work under a clause in the bond and
contract which gave the company that
right.
Surety Company Did Work.
The work was completed by the Surety
Company at loss. although all the bal
ance due under Piper's contract was
paid to the company by Winter and
Faris. Before the last two installnents.
aggregating something over $1,000 were
paid, the Hazen- Latimer Company filed
claim of lien and served notice as re-
CURED by the mechanic lien law. The
surety company gave bond to dis
charge the lien and the Snif IN
this bond
Justice Stafford holds. i'm overruling
demurrer to the bill, that the bond and
contract of the surety company, inasmuch
as they gave the company the absolute
right to take UP the work upon the con-
tractors default. amounted in effect to an
assignment of the contract and put the
surety in the shoes of the contractor, es-
pecially as the bond provided that in case
the surety exercised its option to COM
plete the work instead of allowing the
owner to do SO, any balance due on the
contract and reserve deferred payments
should be paid to the surety at the same
times and under the same conditions as
by the terms of the contract such moneys
would have been paid to the contractor II
he had duly performed his contract.
Can Collect Its Claim.
This decision allows the Hazen- Latimer
Company to collect its claim out of the
balance which was in the hands of the
owners, Winter and Faris, at the time the
notice of lien was served.
The questions of law raised in this case
have not prev iously been decided in the
District OF Columbia and il is probable
that the case will so to the Court of APP
peals.
Justice Stafford in a written opinion OF
some length reviews the authorities In
other Jurisdictions. The case will be of
great interest to all builders and con-
tractors and TO surety companies well.
because the points involved are likely TO
arise in almost any building operation
where bond is given by the contractor.
Attorneys &. Clinton James and w. w.
MILAN represented the plaintiff. Attorneys
Douglas. Ruffin & Obear appeared for the