Case Name: McNASPY v. EUNICE ELECTRIC THEATRE CO., Limited
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1923-05-10
Citations: 154 La. 96
Docket Number: No. 25542
Parties: McNASPY v. EUNICE ELECTRIC THEATRE CO., Limited.
Judges: O’NIELL, C. J., dissents.
Reporter: Louisiana Reports
Volume: 154
Pages: 95–98

Head Matter:
(97 South. 327)
No. 25542.
McNASPY v. EUNICE ELECTRIC THEATRE CO., Limited.
(May 10, 1923.
Rehearing Denied June 4, 1923.)
(Syllabus by Editorial Staff.)
1. Mechanics’ liens &wkey;?l49(3) — Sufficient that recorded statement of claim be itemized to same extent as contract.
Under Act No. 229 of 1916', § 2, it is sufficient that recorded statement of claim of one seeking privilege for work and materials furnished in the erection of a building be itemized so far as the recorded contract itself is itemized.
2. Mortgages &wkey;U63(3) — Privilege of one furnishing labor and materials has priority when timely recorded over mortgage recorded earlier.
When statemfent of claim of one seeking privilege for work and materials furnished in erection of building was recorded within 45 days after acceptance of the work, as required by Act No. 229 of 1916, § 2, it was entitled to preference over mortgage, though earlier recorded.
O’Niell, O. J., dissenting.
Appeal from Sixteenth Judicial District Court, Parish of St. Landry; B. H. Pavy, Judge.
Action by E. B. McNaspy against the Eunice Electric Theatre Company, Limited, in which execution was issued and levied, and in which the Interstate Trust & Banking Company filed a third opposition. From a judgment in favor of the third opponent, plaintiff appeals.
Reversed, and judgment rendered.
L. Austin Fontenot, Alex M. Swords, and John W. Lewis, all of Opelousas, for appellant.
Spencer, Gidiere, Phelps & Dunbar, of New Orleans, and Wm. A. Robertson, of Opelousas, for appellee.

Opinion:
OVERTON, J.
There is no difference between the issues in this case and those in the case of D. C. Rose, Jr., v. Eunice Electric Theatre Co., Ltd. (No. 25544), decided on June 4, 1923, 97 South. 322. As in the Rose Case, the Interstate Trust & Banking Company is the third opponent, and alleges that its mortgage should be paid in preference to McNaspy's claim, for the same reasons that it alleged that' this mortgage should be paid in preference to Rose's claim, in the Rose Case, cited above.
MeNaspy's claim is based on a contract entered into by him with the Eunice Electric Theatre Company, Limited, the owner of the building that was being constructed, to plaster the walls and ceilings of the building, to do certain work incidental thereto, and' to furnish the necessary material therefor.
The evidence shows that McNaspy's contract is a written one, consisting of a written proposition to do the work and furnish the material therefor, accepted in writing by the Eunice Electric Theatre Company, Ltd., through its agent and foreman of construction, McKinney. The evidence also shows that there is due McNaspy on account of the contract a balance of $6,908.93. The record further discloses that McNaspy caused to be recorded in the mortgage records of St. Landry parish, the parish in which the property to be affected is situated, an affidavit making proof of his claim, in which is incorporated his written proposition to do the work and to furnish the material therefor, and the written acceptance of that proposition. This recorded statement of his claim is itemized as nearly -as practicable, that is, as far as the contract itself, which was recorded, itemizes the work to be done and the material to be furnished in doing the work, and this is all that the law (section 2 of Act 229 of 1916) requires, in so' far as respects the itemizing of the statement. This proof of the privilege was recorded within 45 days after the acceptance of the work done, and therefore was timely recorded under the statute-. Section 2 of Act 229 of 1916.
This case, therefore, in all essential particulars, is identical with the case of Rose v. Eunice Electric Theatre Company, Ltd., cited supra, and hence, for the reasons there assigned, McNaspy's claim is entitled to be paid in preference to the mortgage of the third opponent, the Interstate Trust & Banking Company; and, as the judgment of the lower court does not accord to McNaspy's claim that preference, the judgment of that court ufill have to be reversed.
For the reasons assigned, it is ordered, adjudged, and decreed that the judgment appealed from be annulled, avoided, and set aside, and that there now be judgment ranking the claim, and the judgment recovered thereon of said McNaspy against the Eunice Electric Theatre Company, Limited, for said sum of $6,908.93, with legal interest thereon from March 24, 1921, until paid, and the costs of court in recovering said judgment, as superior to the mortgage and judgment of third opponent, and ordering said judgment to be paid in preference to third opponent's mortgage out of the proceeds of the sale of said property. It is further ordered that third opponent pay the costs of this opposition in both courts.
O'NIELL, C. J., dissents.
Ante, p. 81.