Evening star., 1915-02-11
S|DD0NS RENDERS
his FIRST OPINION
sustains Contention That Local
Statutes Efficiently Maintain =
Subcontractor's Rights.

Justice Siddons- of the District Su-
preme Court rendered his first opinion
today in which he sustains the con-
tention that the local statutes efficient
ly protect subcontractor from a de-
struction Of his rights by the principal
contractor through the simple method
of assigning payments to become due
but not then due under his contract
with the building owner.
The opinion was read from the bench,
but the court stated that he had no in
tention of setting a precedent for read
ing all opinions. He intimaled that in
important cases he may continue to
announce his findings.
Similar Lien for Subcontractor.
The court points out that section 1899
of the code gives the subcontractor a
similar lien to that of the original con-
tractor, and by section 1910 he is pre-
ferred to the original contractor when
both have filed notice of lien, and by sec
ton 124S the owner is bound to retain
out of subsequent payments becoming
due to the contractor sufficient funds to
satisfy a subcontractor who has filed his
lien.
Justice Siddons then reviews the two
opinions of the Court of Appeals re-
lating to the rights of subcontractors,
and differentiates them from the case
at bar.
Origin of Question at Issue.
The question arose over In assign
ment made by John H. Nolan of the
amount to be due him as final payment
on the residence of DR.. Loren B. T.
Johnson, which Nolan was construct
ing After the assignment was made
the United States Trust Company, the
assignee. neglected to notify the own
er of it's terms, and one of the sub
contractors of Nolan filed a lien against
the property. Nolan became bankrupt,
and other liens were filed. The referee
denied the claim of the trust company
for preference over the lienors, and
ordered distribution under this ruling.
The trust company obtained a Ger
tification of the question to the court,
Siddons took the matter under advise
ment His opinion rendered today sus-
tains the distribution of the deferee.
Statute Would Be Snare.
Justice Siddons declares that if the
contention of the trust company, that
an assignment of final payment by
contractor without notice is to be sus-
tained, the statute enacted for the
protection of subcontractors is q
SNARE" and well might the subcon-
tractor complain that ut keeps the
word of promise to the ear and breaks
1t to the hope"
What would. then be the value" in
quires the court. Ito subcontratcors of
section 1243. which gives them the
right to know the terms of the con-
tract between the building owner and
the contractor. If the latter has it
within his power to assign, the day
after it's execution. all payments to be-
come due to him Hereunder. The logic
of the assignee's contention in this
case necessarily goes to this extent,
for If the last payment to become due
may be assigned. SO by the same proc
ess of reasoning, may be the first and
and all intervening ones.
Construction Disastrous to Glass.
A construction SO disastrous to the
protection of a class of persons, OBJ
viously intended to be given by the
statute in question, should not be made
unless, called for by established rules
of Interpretation and construction. or
by such construction already adopt
ed by the tribunals to which this court
must yield obedience. And this lat
ter. 1t is insisted by the assignee. has
taken place by the rule laid down by
the Court of Appeals in the cases of
Lambie agt. Bigelow. "a App. D. c.. 49,
and Winter ct al. agt. Hazen-Latimer
Co, AZ W. l.. r., 7S6.
'"rhis court is of the opinion that this
contention results from a mistaken view
Of the scope Of the doctrine announced by
the appellate court