Case Name: COOPER MANUFACTURING CO. v. DELAHUNT
Court: Oregon Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 1900-02-19
Citations: 36 Or. 402
Docket Number: 
Parties: COOPER MANUFACTURING CO. v. DELAHUNT.
Judges: 
Reporter: Oregon Reports
Volume: 36
Pages: 402–410

Head Matter:
Decided 19 February;
rehearing denied 26 March, 1900.
COOPER MANUFACTURING CO. v. DELAHUNT.
[51 Pac. 649, 60 Pac. 1.]
1. Appeal — Mechanic’s Lien — Adverse Party. — In a suit by a material man to foreclose a mechanic’s lien against the owner of real property and his contractor, the latter is not an “adverse party” to an appeal by the property owner from a decree foreclosing the lien, where the answer of such owner does not claim affirmative relief against the contractor.
2. Mechanic’s Lien — Statement oe Amount Due. — Though Hill’s Ann. Laws, § 3673, requires a mechanic’s lien claimant to file a claim containing a true statement of his demand, the court will not hold a lien void for a mistake in the claim filed, as to the amount due, where it is made in an honest belief as to its correctness: Nicolai v. Van Fridagh, 23 Or. 149, distinguished; Rowland v. Harmon, 24 Or. 529, followed.
3. Verification of Claim of Lien. — A mechanic’s lien, filed by a corporation, and sworn to by its secretary, is sufficiently verified, under Hill’s Ann. Laws, 13673, requiring a claimant to file his claim, verified by oath of himself or some other person having knowledge of the facts.
4. Precedence of Lien Over Prior Mortgage. — The last clause of Section 3671, of Hill’s Ann. Laws, which provides that all liens thereby created upon any building shall be preferred to all prior liens or mortgages upon the land upon which said building shall have been constructed or situated when altered or repaired, includes the original construction of a building; so that under that section a lien for material used in such construction has precedence as to the building over a mortgage which was a lien on the land before the building was commenced.
(Headnotes by Bean, J.)
From Multnomah.: Loyal B. Stearns, Judge.
Suit to foreclose a mechanic’s lien by the Cooper Manufacturing Company against M. J. Delahunt, a lot owner, John Chandler, his contractor for a building thereon, and the Alliance Trust Company, who took a mortgage on the lot before the contract for the building was let. From a judgment of dismissal the plaintiff appeals. The defendant M. J. Delahunt moved to dismiss the appeal. The motion having been overruled, the case was heard on its merits and a final decree entered in favor of the plaintiff.
Motion Overruled : Reversed.
Mr. Geo. A. Brodie, for the motion.
Mr. Dell Stuart, contra.

Opinion:
Decided 10 January, 1898.
On Motion to Dismiss Appeal.
[51 Pac. 619.]
Per Curiam.
This is a motion to dismiss an appeal. The transcript shows that plaintiff commenced this suit to foreclose a lien upon certain real property of the defendant M. J. Delahunt, for material furnished to the defendant John Chandler, who, by virtue of a contract with Delahunt, had charge of the construction of a house for the latter on said premises. Chandler was made a party, and personally served with summons, but made default, and, the cause being tried on the issues raised by other parties, the court dismissed the suit, and plaintiff appeals, but did not serve Chandler with notice thereof. The question presented for consideration is whether he is an "adverse party" within the meaning of the statute, upon whom the notice of appeal must be served : Hill's Ann Laws, § 537. The term "adverse party" has been held to mean one whose interest in relation to the decree complained of is in conflict with the modification or reversal sought by the appeal: Lillienthal v. Caravita, 15 Or. 339 (15 Pac. 280); Hamilton v. Blair, 23 Or. 64 (31 Pac. 197); The Victorian, 24 Or. 121 (41 Am. St. Rep. 838); Moody v. Miller, 24 Or. 179 (33 Pac. 402); Jackson County v. Bloomer, 28 Or. 110 (41 Pac. 930). The statute makes every contractor having charge of the construction of any building the agent of the owner, for the purpose of binding the latter for the value of material furnished to be used in, or labor performed upon, such building, at the request of the former : Hill's Ann. Laws, § 3669. The contract is therefore entered into between the persons furnishing the materials or performing the labor and the owner, and while, perhaps, the contractor may have brought them together, he is not a necessary party to a suit to foreclose a mechanic's lien, unless a personal decree is sought against him by the owner: Osborn v. Logus, 28 Or. 303 (37 Pac. 456, 38 Pac. 190, and 42 Pac. 997). If the owner has settled with the contractor in full, he shall be entitled to. recover from the latter any payment in excess of the contract price he may be compelled to make in discharging liens placed upon his property for which the contractor was originally the party liable : Hill's Ann. Laws, § 3679. The contractor, in such case, might be a necessary party; but, before the court could render any decree against him, the owner should allege in his answer such facts as would entitle him to the relief provided for in the statute. This he has not done in the case at bar, and hence Chandler is not an adverse or necessary party to the appeal, and, such being the case,, the motion is denied. Motion Denied.
For appellant there was a brief over the name of Dell Stuart, with an oral argument by Mr. Stuart and Mr. Lionel R. Webster.
For the Alliance Trust Company there was an oral argument by Messrs. Wm. D. Fenton and Earl G. Bronaugh, Jr., with a brief to this effect: