Case Name: Dennis Fitzpatrick, Respondent, vs. John S. Thomas, Appellant
Court: Supreme Court of Missouri
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 1876-01
Citations: 61 Mo. 512
Docket Number: 
Parties: Dennis Fitzpatrick, Respondent, vs. John S. Thomas, Appellant.
Judges: All the other judges concur except Judge Vories, absent.
Reporter: Missouri Reports
Volume: 61
Pages: 512–519

Head Matter:
Dennis Fitzpatrick, Respondent, vs. John S. Thomas, Appellant.
1. Mechanic's lien — Single lien on number of houses and lots, invalid — Defendants, who should and who need not be made. — Where houses are erected separately and upon distinct lots of land, a separate lien must be filed against each house and lot for the work and materials thereon; and a single lien filed against the entire premises for the aggregate charge, is invalid. And it is immaterial that at the time of the contract the houses and lots belonged to the same owner, and that in suit on the lien he was made sole defendant. (Fitzgerald vs. Thomas, ante p. 499.)
Appeal from, St. Louis Circuit Court.
Schulenburg, for Appellant.
Cline, Jamison <§• Day, for Respondent.
I. "The plaintiff’s lien attached at the time when the buildings were commenced by him, and no subsequent conveyance by the defendant could divest plaintiff of his lieh. (Douglas vs. St. Louis Zinc Co., 56 Mo., 388.) And it could not avail the defendant to aver in his answer, that before the filing of the lien he liad conveyed to others.
II. There is no pretence that the lots on which the houses were built were in any way distinct or separate, unless they were made so by virtue of the different houses upon them built by the plaintiff. And no good reason can be given why the lien should have been distributed or apportioned on the different houses which were built by one contract for the same contractor and owner, and on the same piece and parcel of land. -
In Matlack vs. Love (32 Mo., 262) the lien described the property as <!two three-story brick houses situated on the east side of Fifth street, between Franklin Avenue and Morgan
Street.” The court held that as no boundaries were given that was not a sufficient description to disclose to the officer the property to be sold ; but the court makes no comment on the fact of the lien being on “two three-story brick houses,” showing that the court did not consider the lien objectionable on that ground.
In Moran vs. Chase (52. N. T., 346) it is held, that where, under the provisions of the mechanic’s lien law of that State, a lien is filed for work done and materials furnished for a number of adjoining buildings all owned by the same person, as against the owner, they can all be treated as a single building. One single proceeding may be instituted to enforce the claim against all of them. (To same effect see Paine vs. Bonney, 6 Abb. Pr., 99 ; 4 E. D., Smith, 734.) In Landers vs. Lester (106 Mass., 531) though the point is not expressly decided, yet it is virtually conceded that if work should be done in efeeting a block of houses under the same contract, a lien could be maintained on the whole block. In Ckadbourne vs. Williams (71 N. C., 444) it is held that where work is done under a single contract, the lien may attach to the whole property, even though the lots should be separated by a street.
In the case in 3 Oregon, 527, the contract was wholly with a person who held an incumbrance on the property, he being the only one who filed an answer, and the decision shows that it was solely in reference to the rights of that party that the decision was made. It further appears that the work, etc., in that case’(p. 528) was done at different times and on different buildings. The Oregon statute also uses the word ■“building” in the singular number throughout, and the court (p. 532) seems to lay stress on the words “such building.”
Our statute uses the word “buildings” in different section?, showing that it was not contemplated that the lien should be confined to a single building, where more should be erected Under one contract, on the same parcel of ground for the owner.
The ease in 17 111., 300, cited by the defendant simply decides that where the work was done on different premises the mechanic conld not file a lien on one of them for the aggregate amount of work done on both, which may be conceded to be good law, but does not affect the present case.
The case in 5 Allen, 40.6, is decided expressly on the ground that before the-feuce was built, and hence before any lien accrued, the houses on which the lien was claimed, belonged to different owners.
III. This case is not identified with that of Fitzgerald vs. Thomas, ante p. 499.
1. In the present case the property appears to be (and'is so confessed by the pleadings) one piece or parcel of ground belonging to the same owner, and in no way divided into lots or any other snb-divisions.
2. In this case Thomas alone is a party, Miile in the Fitzgerald case the purchasers and incumbrancers were made parties, and the decision in the latter case would seem to be based on the fact that their interests as defendants were being protected by the court.

Opinion:
Hough. Judge,
delivered the opinion of the court.
The defendant has appealed to this court from a judgment enforcing a mechanic's lien for labor and materials furnished by the plaintiff, for the erection of four houses on land belonging to the defendant at the date of the contract with the plaintiff, and described in the petition and' the statement of lien filed, as one entire tract having a front of 110 feet on Pine street, an'd a depth of one hundred and fifteen feet, five and a half inches. The answer, in addition to other defenses, denied that plaintiff's claim, or any part thereof, constituted a lien upon the premises described in the petition.
The plaintiff's own testimony tended to show that the houses were disconnected from each other, having an open space of three or four feet between them, and were erected upon distinct lots of land; that there was no difficulty in making an estimate of the quantity of brick in each house, and if they had not been constructed for the same owner, separate accounts would have been rendered therefor.
1. Mechanic's lien — Denial that plaintiff's claim constitutes a lien, has what effect.
—Under the late practice act of this State, in suit to enforce a mechanic's lien, a denial that plaintiff's claim constitutes a lien on the land is sufficient to nut in issue the liability of the property to be charged with the lien. All other facts necessary to constitute a Hen must be specifically denied or they will stand admitted.
The only instruction which it will be necessary to notice, is the following, which was asked by the defendant but refused by the court: £:If it appears from the evidence that the premises described in the petition are four separate, distinct and several houses and lots, and that the amount of brick and labor furnished by plaintiff upon each of said four houses separately could have been ascertained by, or was known to the plaintiff at the time he filed the lien, then the court declares it was the duty of plaintiff to apportion the aggregate amount of his claim as to the four houses separately, and to file his stateinent of mechanic's lien upon each house and lot separately, and plaintiff having failed to do so, the plaintiff is not entitled to a mechanic's lien against the premises sned for."
There was testimony on which to base this instruction and it should have been given, although that portion which relates the ability of the plaintiff to apportion the labor and material is wholly immaterial and unnecessary. It was his duty to do it. This question was considered and passed upon in the cause of Fitzgerald vs. Thomas, decided at the present term. It can make no difference in the present case, that the person who was the owner of the ground at the time the contract was made, is the sole defendant. The language of the statute and the policy of the law alike forbid our making this case an exception on that account. Each separate house and lot must be charged with the amount expended upon it, and upon it only, and then no complications can arise.
The judgment will be reversed and the cause remanded.
All the other judges concur except Judge Vories, absent.