Case Name: BARR v. WORLD KEEPFRESH CO.
Court: Oregon Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 1915-07-20
Citations: 77 Or. 102
Docket Number: 
Parties: BARR v. WORLD KEEPFRESH CO.
Judges: Mr. Chief Justice Moore, Mr. Justice Eakin and Mr. Justice Harris concur.
Reporter: Oregon Reports
Volume: 77
Pages: 102–104

Head Matter:
Argued July 2,
affirmed July 20, 1915.
BARR v. WORLD KEEPFRESH CO.
(150 Pac. 749.)
Mechanics’ Liens — Poreclosure Decree — Sale of Property.
1. The deeree in a mechanic’s lien foreclosure should provide that the building and necessary ground be sold together, and not that the building be sold first, and then, if necessary, the ground.
From Yamhill: Webster Holmes, Judge.
Department 2.
Statement by Mr. Justice Bean.
This is a suit by Theo. M. Barr against the World Keepfresh Company, a corporation, in which the defendant appeals from a decree of the Circuit Court for Yamhill County in favor of plaintiff, foreclosing a mechanic’s lien on block 4, in Kershaw’s Addition to Willamina, Oregon, together with the buildings thereon. The claim alleged in the complaint is for labor performed and materials furnished in the construction of a dryer of the reasonable value of $1,010.98. A copy of the notice of lien filed hy plaintiff is attached to and made a part of the complaint.
Affirmed.
For appellant there was a brief and an oral argument hy Mr. E. E. Heckbert.
For respondent there was a brief over the name of Messrs. Jeffrey & Lenon, with an oral argument by Mr. Charles E. Lenon.

Opinion:
Mr. Justice Bean
delivered the opinion of the court.
The demand consists of a single item, the materials furnished and labor performed. The case is a companion to Barr v. World Keepfresh Co., ante, p. 95 (150 Pac. 747), differing but slightly from that and controlled thereby. In this case it is contended that the sum of $24 was for nonlienable items, consisting of board, lodging and expenses. It is shown by the evidence that the plaintiff, according to his custom, paid the workmen for work done outside of the City of Salem the usual rate per diem and $5 per week additional. The plaintiff had nothing to do with boarding his help. This item and other expenses, such as freight upon material, were simply matters which added to the cost of the labor and material. It is earnestly argued by defendant that the evidence in the case does not support the decree. This position cannot be maintained. To begin with, the answer of the defendant is not, and apparently could not be, a square denial of the claim. It is to the effect that it denies every allegation therein except as admitted. It acknowledges that the plaintiff furnished some materials for a dryer in the town of "Willamina. How much was so furnished, or whether less than the above amount, nowhere appears in the answer. Waiving this, however, a careful examination of the evidence shows that the claim is a reasonable amount for the labor performed and materials furnished in the construction of the dryer. Mr. Barr did not personally superintend the erection of the plant, but shipped the material to the place, and his foreman, who was present during the whole time, testified that he received the materials, kept his own time and that of the men. Plaintiff's evidence shows that the amount charged was reasonable. None of this evidence is contradicted. The decree appealed from provides that the building and dryer be sold first, and then, if necessary, block 4, upon which the same is situated, shall be sold. This might work a hardship upon the defendant. The building and necessary ground should he sold together. With this exception the decree of the lower court is affirmed; plaintiff to recover costs. Affirmed.
Mr. Chief Justice Moore, Mr. Justice Eakin and Mr. Justice Harris concur.