Case Name: ALFRED HILLER CO., Limited, v. HOTEL GRUNEWALD CO., Limited
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1920-04-05
Citations: 147 La. 129
Docket Number: No. 22421
Parties: ALFRED HILLER CO., Limited, v. HOTEL GRUNEWALD CO., Limited.
Judges: O’NIELL, J., concurs in the decree.
Reporter: Louisiana Reports
Volume: 147
Pages: 129–133

Head Matter:
(84 South. 520)
No. 22421.
ALFRED HILLER CO., Limited, v. HOTEL GRUNEWALD CO., Limited.
(April 5, 1920.
Rehearing Denied May 3, 1920.)
(Syllabus by Editorial Staff.)
1. Appeal and error <&wkey;>878(l) — Appellee cannot urge errors in absence of cross-appeal.
Where defendant did not appeal from the judgment which was in its favor, the appellate court can review none of its pleas and exceptions.
2. Mechanics’ liens <&wkey;229 — Mechanics’ privileges; where contract was re-signed on furnishing of bond more than seven days after first signing, owner is not liable to one furnishing materials thereafter.
Where a contract was executed on March fith and the contractor failed to furnish bond for protection of materialmen until March 22d, whereupon the bond was recorded and the contract re-signed under an agreement that it should be as of that date, one who thereafter furnished materials to the contractor cannot recover from the owner under Act No. 180, § 1, of 1894, on the theory that the bond was not executed and recorded within seven days after the contract was signed, for at least as to one who did not begin to furnish material until after the bond was executed and recorded, it was within the time, and this is true even though the statute should be construed according to its letter.,
3. Mechanics’ liens <&wkey;5 — Mechanics’ privileges; law making owner of lands liable to materialman should be strictly construed.
A law, as Act No. 180 of 1894, making an owner who fails to take a bond liable to materialmen for materials furnished the contractor, should be strictly construed, being in derogation of common right.
4. Mechanics’ liens &wkey;>229— Mechanics’ privileges; though bond was not recorded in time, materialman could not recover on theory work was begun before bond was recorded.
Though contractor’s bond was not recorded within seven days after the signing of the contract, held, under the circumstances, that materialman not furnishing materials until after the redating of the contract and recording of bond was not, under Act No. 180 of 1894, entitled to take advantage of the situation, on the theory work was begun before filing of the bond; even preliminary work having been' ceased until furnishing of the bond.
Appeal from Civil District Court, Parish of Orleans; T. C. W. Ellis, Judge.
Action by the Alfred Hiller Company, Limited, against the Hotel Grünewald Company, Limited. From a judgment for the defendant and dismissing the warrantor, the American Bonding Company of Baltimore, called in by defendant, plaintiff appeals.
Affirmed.
Milling, Godehaux, Saal & Milling, of New Orleans, for appellant.
W. O. Hart and John C. Davey, both of New Orleans, for appellee Hotel Grünewald Co.
Solomon Wolff, of New Orleans, for appellee American Bonding Co.

Opinion:
DAWKINS, J.
Plaintiff seeks to recover of the Grünewald Hotel Company, Limited, for materials furnished oné of the contractors employed in erecting defendant's hotel building in the city of New Orleans. The ground upon which'it is sought to make the defendant liable is that it failed to record the contract and bond for the work within seven days after the same were executed, and before the work was commenced.
Certain exceptions were filed by the defendant, some of which are found in the record, and others seem to have been omitted, but all of which appear to have been overruled.
Defendant then filed a short general denial, and later supplemented the same with an amended answer calling in warranty the American Bonding Company of Baltimore, surety on the bond of the contractors, Expanded Metal Fireproofing Company, and the Northwestern Tile Company.
The warrantor excepted on the ground of vagueness, and, this being overruled, it answered, setting up that the defendant had made material changes in the work with the contractor, without the consent of the warrantor, the bond company, and that it was the duty of the defendant to retain in its hands sufficient funds to cover claims which the contractors might owe other persons, as the law required; that it did so retain a sum more than sufficient to cover the claim of plaintiff; and that any judgment recovered by the Hiller Company, Limited, herein, should be paid out of said fund.
There was judgment in the court below in favor of defendant, and dismissing the warrantor. Plaintiff alone has appealed.
Opinion.
None of the pleas and exceptions of the defendant and warrantor are now before us, for the reason that they did not appeal, nor have they answered the appeal of the plaintiff.