Case Name: NOTTINGHAM v. McKENDRICK
Court: Oregon Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 1901-02-18
Citations: 38 Or. 495
Docket Number: 
Parties: NOTTINGHAM v. McKENDRICK.
Judges: 
Reporter: Oregon Reports
Volume: 38
Pages: 495–503

Head Matter:
Argued 31 December, 1900;
decided 18 February, 1901.
NOTTINGHAM v. McKENDRICK.
[57 Pac. 195; 63 Pac. 822.]
Filing Transcript Before Perfecting Appeal — Practice.
1. The proper practice where a transcript has been filed before the appeal has been perfected, is to move to strike the transcript from the files, rather than to ask for a dismissal: Ohemin v. East Portland, 19 Or. 512, applied.
Appeal — Waiver of Irregularity by Not Objecting.
2. An objection to the filing of a transcript for an irregularity in practice must be made promptly, or it will be considered waived.
Appeal — ■ Filing Perfected Undertaking.
3. Where appellants have acted in good faith and with fair diligence in their efforts to complete and file a proper undertaking on appeal, they will be permitted to file a perfected undertaking out of time: Wheeler v. Matlock, 29 Or. 64, applied.
Rules of Court — Delayed Abstract of Record.
4. Where appellant was but two days in default in filing his abstract, as required by Rule 4 (24 Or. 595, 35 Or. 591), when respondent moved to dismiss the appeal, and no injury resulted from the delay, the abstract may be filed within a time to be fixed by the court, especially where the delay was caused by a misunderstanding of the rule: Fleischner v. Bank of McMinnville, 36 Or. 553, applied.
Sufficiency of Notice of Mechanic’s Lien.
5. A notice of intention to claim a mechanic’s lien which states that “N & Company have, by virtue of a contract with M, a contractor with T, lessee of the building hereinafter described, under a lease with D for the furnishing of material, furnished material to be and which was used in the erection of a” described building, sufficiently shows the name of the person to whom the material was furnished, as required by section 3673 of Hill’s Ann. Laws, since it may be reasonably inferred from what is stated that the material was furnished to M, the contractor: Getty v. Ames, 30 Or. 573, distinguished; Rowland v. Harmon, 24 Or. 529, applied.
Evidence of Assignment of Lien.
6. An assignment of “our claim against M” for material furnished on a building, made after the filing of the lien and prior to the'commencement of the suit, is sufficient to constitute an assignment of the lien as against the owner; both the assignor and assignee testifying that it was intended as an assignment of the lien, in order that it might be foreclosed in the same suit with the lien of the assignee.
Mechanic’s Lien — Sufficiency of Complaint.
7. In foreclosing a mechanic’s lien it is not necessary to state in the complaint that the notice of lien contained any statement not required by the statute, and, as the statute (Hill’s Ann. Laws, §3673), does not specify that the notice shall contain any statement about whether the material furnished was actually used, the complaint need not show that the notice contained such a statement: Allen v. Blwert, 29 Or. 428, followed.
Posting Notice in Conspicuous Place —• Statutes.
8. Section 3672, Hill’s Ann. Laws, providing that certain persons may relieve their property from a lien by posting a certain notice “in some conspicuous place” on such property is not complied with by posting the notice in a little side recess of a building on the land.
Use of Material to Support Lien.
9. In a suit to foreclose a mechanic’s lien for work done at the request of a tenant of a room in a leased building, and with the knowledge of the lessee, it is immaterial that some of such work was done in a part of the tenant’s room that he had allowed another person to occupy.
From Multnomah: Alfred F. Sears, Jr., Judge.
Decided 22 May, 1899.
On Motion to Dismiss Appeal.
Fred L. Keenan for the motion.
Spencer & Motter and X. N. Steeves, contra.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
The appellants filed their notice of appeal and undertaking on September 27, 1898, and the transcript on October 4, 1898, — the second day of .the term. On the first day of October exceptions were taken to the sufficiency of the surety on the undertaking, and on the seventeenth he appeared before the clerk of the court below for the purpose of justifying; but that officer found he was unable to justify, and at once notified the appellants, who- thereupon, on the fourth day of November, filed a new undertaking, but without notice to- respondents. On March 29, 1899, respondents served a motion to dismiss the appeal on appellants, and filed it the next day with the clerk of this court. The motion assigns as reasons for the dismissal, among others, that the transcript of the cause was filed before the appeal was perfected, that no appeal has ever been perfected, and that the appellants did not file an abstract of the record within twenty days after the filing of the transcript, as required by rule 4 (37 Pac. vi.), or obtain an extension of time therefor. On April 17, 1899, when the motion was brought on for hearing, the appellants served notice upon the respondents that they would move the court for an order permitting them to file a new undertaking.
The transcript having been filed before the appeal was perfected, the cause might have been stricken from the October docket, but not dismissed: Chemin v. East Portland, 19 Or. 512 (24 Pac. 1038).
" It has been permitted to remain upon the calendar, however, although the transcript has not been refiled, and it should now be considered as properly upon the March docket.
It seems, by the efforts made to- file and complete a proper undertaking, that the appellants have, in good faith, been fairly diligent in their purpose to perfect the appeal according to law; and under the rule established by Matlock v. Wheeler, 29 Or. 64 (40 Pac. 5, and 43 Pac. 867), and by Mendenhall v. Elwert, 36 Or. 375 (52 Pac. 22), they should be permitted to file the perfected undertaking now.
The next question is touching the abstract. Counsel for appellants, claiming to have misunderstood the -rule relating thereto, announced at the argument of the motion his willingness and purpose to filé an abstract in compliance with any order the court might make respecting it. While there seems to have been some dereliction in the matter, we are inclined to relieve the appellants from the default. The rules of the court, as was said in Neppach v. Jones, 28 Or. 286, 289 (42 Pac. 519), "were designed and intended to facilitate the business and simplify the practice, and are not so arbitrary or inflexible as to work an injustice, or prevent a hearing in this court when the failure to comply therewith is owing to the excusable neglect of the party." It should, however, be understood that they will be substantially enforced, and that parties appealing will be required to conform thereto in all material respects. Considering that the cause came regularly on the March docket, appellants were only two days in default when the motion: to dismiss was served upon them; and, the delay not resulting in any material injury to the respondents, the motion will be overruled: Fleischner v. Bank of McMinnville, 36 Or. 553 (54 Pac. 884). The appellants may file the new undertaking now, and they will be required to serve and file a printed abstract of the record within five days from this date.
Motion Overruled.