Case Name: JOHNSON v. PAULSON
Court: Oregon Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 1916-03-07
Citations: 83 Or. 238
Docket Number: 
Parties: JOHNSON v. PAULSON.
Judges: Me. Justice Eakin absent.
Reporter: Oregon Reports
Volume: 83
Pages: 238–250

Head Matter:
Motion to dismiss appeal allowed as to respondent Shea, March 7, 1916.
On the merits submitted on brief, February 6, modified March 6, 1917.
JOHNSON v. PAULSON.
(154 Pac. 685; 163 Pac. 435.)
Appeal and Error — Decisions Reviewable — Consent Decree.
1. In a suit to foreclose mechanics’ liens, where defendants by their attorneys stated in open court that one of the claimants was entitled to recover, such admission, while not technically a consent deeree, was equivalent to a consent decree, whieh, under Sections 186-192, L. O. L., is not appealable.
Appeal and Error — “Adverse Parties” — Who are.
2. One respondent in whose favor a mechanic’s lien was established is not an adverse party as to other respondents whose liens were established, though he would be an adverse party had his claim been denied.
Appeal and Error — Dismissal of Appeal — Effect.
3. Section 425, L. 0. L., declares that, if a decree foreclosing mechanics’ liens be in favor of different persons, execution shall issue upon the joint request of such persons. The right of several claimants to issue execution, their liens having been established, was stayed by an undertaking given under Section 551 by the owner, who appealed. Held, that dismissal of the owner’s appeal as to one of the lien claimants whose rights were admitted would not jeopardize the rights of the others; as he could not issue execution himself, and under the judgment would have to share pro rata with the other claimants.
Appeal and Error — Dismissal—Parties in Interest.
4. In a suit to foreclose mechanics’ liens, where the lien was admitted as to one of the claimants, an appeal from a judgment in favor of several, including him, may be dismissed as to such claimant, where he was not an adverse party as to the others, and dismissal would not jeopardize their rights; the errors assigned against judgment in favor of the others being sueh that they could be adjudicated without his presence.
ON THE MERITS.
Appeal and Error — Grounds of Review — Variance.
5. In a suit to foreclose a mechanic’s lien for labor, where the complaint alleges an express agreement for a stated rate per day, and the answer alleges an express contract to pay a smaller sum, the nature of the agreement was not an issue in the case, and hence defendants cannot maintain on appeal that plaintiff is not entitled to a decree because his complaint alleges an express contract, while his proofs disclose an implied contract only, and that the judgment of the court is erroneously based upon quantum meruit.
Mechanics’ Liens — Evidence—Sufficiency.
6. In an action to foreclose a mechanic’s lien for labor, evidence held to show that plaintiff’s overstatement in his notice of lien of the amount due him was the result of an honest mistake in the amount per day he was to receive.
Mechanics’ Liens — Notice—Overstatement—Effect.
7. While a willful overstatement in a mechanic’s lien notice of the amount due will render the lien void, where plaintiff made an honest mistake in the amount per day he was to receive, and because of this error claimed a larger amount in his mechanic’s lien than was due him, the entire lien was not vitiated, and the court did not err in finding that he was entitled to recover the actual amount due.
[As to effect on mechanic’s lien of filing claim for more than is due, see note in Ann. Cas. 1914D, 878.]
Mechanics’ Liens — Evidence—Sufficiency.
8. In an action to foreclose a mechanic’s lien for labor, evidence held to justify a finding that there was an express agreement to pay plaintiff $3.50 per day as claimed by plaintiff.
Appeal and Error — Affirmance—Judgment not Appealed from.
9. In consolidated actions to foreclose mechanics’ liens, where a plaintiff did not appeal from a judgment for a less amount than claimed by him, judgment will be affirmed, although the evidence justified a finding in accordance with his claim.
Mechanics’ Liens — Liens—Action—Pleading.
10. In an action to foreclose a mechanic’s lien for plastering, where plaintiff alleged an express contract, and included an item for extra work, and the proof showed that the laborer who did such work was not in the employ of plaintiff, and that the extra work was not a part of the express contract, plaintiff cannot recover for the extra work, since if a plaintiff alleges in his pleading an express contract, he cannot recover upon proof of a quantum meruit.
Mechanics’ Liens — Actions—Pleading.
11. In an action to foreclose a mechanic’s lien for plastering, where plaintiff alleged an express contract and included an item for extra work, although he could not recover for the extra work because it was shown not to have been included in the express contract, the fact that he fails as to that part of his claim through an error in pleading does not invalidate his demand or prevent recovery for the work done under the terms of the express contract.
Mechanics’ Liens — Note as Payment — Necessity of Agreement.
12. A note given for building materials did not discharge the account in the absence of an express agreement that it would be ae cepted in payment, and hence the payee was entitled to recover in an action to foreclose his mechanic’s lien.
Mechanics’ Liens — Notice of Lien — Overstatement—Effect.
13. Errors in bookkeeping, arising from honest mistakes in making exchanges in material and neglect to make proper credits and resulting in a claim for a mechanic’s lien of a greater amount than due plaintiffs, will not be permitted to vitiate the entire lien.
Mechanics’ Liens — Evidence—Sufficiency.
14. In an action to foreclose a mechanic’s lien, evidence held not to sustain defendant’s contention that plaintiff’s contract was to furnish all the material necessary for a fixed sum.
From Multnomah: T. E. J. Durey, Judge.
This is a suit by Martin Johnson, J. F. Shea and others against Josephine Paulson, W. J. Clemens, trustee, and others, for the foreclosure of mechanics’ liens. From a decree of foreclosure, the named defendants appeal. The respondent, J. F. Shea, files motion to dismiss the appeal as to him.
In Banc. Statement by Me. Justice Habéis.
Josephine Paulson was the owner of lot 4 in block 17, Irvington, an addition to the City of Portland, upon which she caused a dwelling-house to be constructed. A. S. Paulson was the contractor. Martin Johnson, Oscar Carlson, B. E. Remaley, Hansen & Holding, a partnership, Park McDonald, J. B. Winstanley Company, a partnership, J. F. Shea, the Oregon Door Company, a corporation, each filed liens or. the property on account of indebtedness incurred by the contractor in the construction of the building; and the contractor also filed a lien to secure the amount due him from the owner. The record indicates that seven, separate suits were instituted for the foreclosure of as many liens, because on the motion of J. F. Shea it was “ordered that the said above-entitled suits, being suits Nos. E3098, E3093, E3092, E3095, E3096, E3097 and E3094, be and they are hereby con solidated under suit No. E3094, and that they be tried at the same time.”
The several claims were tried and adjudicated in one proceeding. The disposition made of the several claims is recorded in a single journal entry wherein it appears that a separate judgment was granted for each lien claimant and each judgment was supplemented by an order directing that the property he sold and that the proceeds of the sale he applied pro rata on the several judgments except as to A. S. Paulson whose claim is subordinated to all the others. The defendants Josephine Paulson and W. J. Clemens, trustee, appealed from the whole judgment and decree. J. F. Shea now moves that the appeal be dismissed as to him.
Dismissed as to J. P. Shea.
Messrs. Lewis & Lewis, for the motion.
Messrs. Stapleton & Conley, contra.

Opinion:
Mr. Justice Harris
delivered the opinion of the court.
During the trial the claim of Shea was admitted by appellants and their attorney stated in open court: "I think he is entitled to recover in this case." While not technically a decree by confession within the meaning of Sections 186 to 192, L. O. L., inclusive, the admission is equivalent to a consent decree which is not appealable: Fassman v. Baumgartner, 3 Or. 469; Twitchell v. Risley, 56 Or. 226 (107 Pac. 459); Plinsky v. Nolan, 65 Or. 402 (133 Pac. 71); Schmidt v. Oregon Mining Co., 28 Or. 9 (40 Pac. 406, 1014, 52 Am. St. Rep. 759); State v. McDonald, 63 Or. 467 (128 Pac. 835, Ann. Cas. 1915A, 201); Boyer v. Burton, 79 Or. 662 (149 Pac. 83); 3 C. J., § 453, 546.
Shea is in no way united in interest with any of the other respondents and there is no good reason for compelling him to present his claim on an appeal which must inevitably be dismissed as to him. Moreover, Shea was not necessarily an adverse party within the rule established in Watson v. Noonday Mining Co., 37 Or. 287 (55 Pac. 867, 58 Pac. 36, 60 Pac. 994), although he would be an adverse party if his claim had been disallowed by the trial court: Barton v. Young, 78 Or. 215 (152 Pac. 876).
Nor does a dismissal of the appeal as to Shea jeopardize the rights of the other respondents. See.tion 425, L. O. L., declares that if a decree of foreclosure is in favor of different persons, not united in interest, an execution shall issue upon the joint request of such persons or upon the order of the court or judge thereof on the motion of either of them. All the lien claimants cannot join in a request for an execution because the hands of some of the judgment creditors are stayed by an undertaking which complies with the requirements of Section 551, L. O. L. Shea would at all events he required to share the proceeds with such other lien claimants as might prevail on the appeal because one of the provisions of the decree obtained by Shea is to the effect that he shall share pro rata with the other judgment creditors. The assignments of error point out objections to the judgments granted to Johnson, Carlson, Eemaley, Hansen & Holding, J. B. "Winstanley Company and the Oregon Door Company and those objections which arise out of separate parts of the final decree can he adjudicated without the presence of Shea: Poppleton v. Nelson, 10 Or. 437; Everding & Farrell v. Toft, 82 Or. 1 (150 Pac. 757). See also Williams v. Wilson, 42 Or. 299, 308 (70 Pac. 1031, 95 Am. St. Rep. 745); Lauriat v. Stratton (C. C.), 11 Fed. 107 (6 Sawy. 339, 342).
The appeal is dismissed as to J. F. Shea.
Motion to Dismiss Allowed.
Me. Justice Eakin absent.
On effect of filing an excessive mechanic's lien, see note in 29 L. R. A. (N. S.) 305. Reporter.