Polk County observer. (Monmouth, Polk County, Or.) 1888-1927, 1914-01-27
INNOCENT
LO0SES LOT
A YAMHILL MAN LOOSES A
PORTLAND PIECE OF PROP
ERTY VALUED AT $1,000
Ignorant of the Oregon Law Caused
an Innocent Man This Loss.

The following from the Portland
Journal should be read by every lo
owner and they should profit by the
victims experience.
1t shows how easy an unscrupilous
contractor and real estate shark
could swindle the innocent. The
contractor takes no chance according
to this article of his money and he
can place the value of his work at
any old price and as he has the lot
to insure him of his wages and also
the law to help him in his scheme it
behoves all lot owners who do not
want to commit murder to see that
the agent who handles their property
is bound in writing not to accept a
partial payment on their property
unless the would be purchaser gave
bond not to commence improvements
without the consent of the owner.
S. d. Crawford, 76 years old, who
lives at cMinnville, used to own a
lot out at North Belle Crest, one of
the Rose City Park subdivisions. Mr..
Crawford doesn't own this lot any
longer, although he has never signed
n deed conveying the lot to any one
else, nor was it taken from him by a
court procedure because of any debts
that he personally owed.
He lost it through the operations
of the building material lien law He
lost it almost over night and was the
most astonished man in the state
when he found it out He doesn y
understand yet how it came about
and probably never WILL but the
building material supply men and the
lawyers and the courts know how it
happened. oo ....>
About six years ago Mr.. Crawford
bought a so foot lot from local
real estate dealer which was describ-
ed as lot 2, block 26, North Belle
Crest, and is located on East Sixty
seventh street, just north of Sandy
Road, in one of the best developed
districts of Rose City Park. 1t has
cost him all told nearly $1,000. By
dint of economical living and hard
saving he finally managed to pay for
the lot.
Last September he put his lot in
the hands of a real estate agent to
sell for him. The agent advertised
it and shortly thereafter William Dur
finger, speculative house builder,
came to the agent S office to enquire
about. the lot.
He was given its location and went
out to look at it. Returning to the
agent s Office Durfinger said that he
would take the property and there
upon he deposited $25 with the agent
and took a receipt containing this
clause, "This deposit received sub
iect to the approval of the owner"
Immediately the agent communi-
Gated with Mr.. Crawford, told him
that he had a buyer for his lot and
instructed him to get up the alb
Stract.
When Mr.. Crawford came to Port
land short time thereafter he went
out to look at his lot, and was as
tonished to find a story and half
bungalow about two-thirds completed
on the property. Durfiinger had
huriedly built the house on the lot
with no other evidence of title than
this agents receipt containing the
clause, "Subject to the approval of
the owner"
He had bought all of the building
material on credit and owned some
labor bills on the house. However,
he had abandoned the building about
November 5th, two days before Mr..
Crawford first learned that he had
a house on his lot. The result was
that the house was plastered with
about 1000 of liens. Mr.. Crawford
went into court to try and recover
his property, but the court held that
Mr.. Crawford had failed to post
notice on the property. within three
days after learning that house was
on it, notifying the public that he ;
would not be responsible for material
or labor furnished for any building
erected on the lot.
The effect of the decision was that
Mr.. Crawford has lost his lot. al
though he has never received a dollar
for it and has never signed a deed,
while the house and lot is to be sold q
to satisfy the demands of the mater J
ial dealers and the carpenters and {
other labor. i
Notice of appeal has been given in S