Case Name: KOLLOCK & CO. v. LEYDE
Court: Oregon Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 1915-09-28
Citations: 77 Or. 569
Docket Number: 
Parties: KOLLOCK & CO. v. LEYDE.
Judges: Mr. Justice Eakin, Mr. Justice McNary and Mr. Justice Bean concur.
Reporter: Oregon Reports
Volume: 77
Pages: 569–576

Head Matter:
Application to stay execution pending appeal allowed July 31, 1914.
Argued on the merits September 17,
affirmed September 28,
rehearing denied October 19, 1915.
KOLLOCK & CO. v. LEYDE.
(143 Pac. 621; 151 Pac. 733.)
Appeal and Error — Stay of Proceedings — Counter Undertaking — “Suit upon a Contract.”
1. A suit to foreclose a mechanic's lien is not “a suit upon a contract,” within Section 553, L. O. L., providing for the enforcement of a judgment or decree in such a suit, notwithstanding an appeal and undertaking for the stay of proceedings, upon the giving of a counter undertaking.
Appeal and Error- — Stay of Proceedings — Temporary Injunction.
2. The Supreme Court has power to issue a temporary injunction to preserve the status quo of property pending an appeal.
ON THE MERITS.
Mechanics’ Liens — Actions—Evidence.
3. In a suit to establish a mechanic’s lien, evidence held to show that the laths furnished were of the proper quality.
Mechanics’ Liens — Foreclosure—Evidence.
4. In a suit to foreclose a mechanic’s lien, evidence held to show that the plaster furnished was of proper quality.
Mechanics’ Liens — Foreclosure—Quality.
5. In a suit to foreclose a mechanic’s lien for materials ordered by a carpenter, evidence held to show that the owners authorized the orders.
Mechanics’ Liens — Foreclosure—Description.
6. Where householders owned several adjoining lots, a lien statement which correctly gave the number of the house and the description of the block and street is sufficient, under section 7420, L. O. L., though the lot number given was not the lot on which the house was located, for the description would be sufficient, if the lot number was disregarded as surplusage.
[As to when mechanic’s lien may include property in addition to that upon which work was performed, see note in 65 Am. St. Rep. 165.]
Mechanics’ Liens — Foreclosure—Burden of Proof.
7. One seeking to foreclose a mechanic’s lien is not bound to show that the materials went into the building; but defendants, desirous of showing that the materials were not used, have the burden of proving that fact.
From Multnomah: George N. Davis, Judge.
Department 2.
Statement by Mr. Chief Justice McBride.
Tbis is a suit by L. B. Kollock & Company, a corporation, against E. C. Leyde, E. A. Pearson and Hilma Pearson, husband and wife, F. J. Berger and Albert Berger, copartners doing business as Williams Avenue Planing Mill, and Jacob Stern, wherein plaintiff sued to foreclose certain mechanics’ liens upon a building and lot in Portland, and on the trial bad a decree of foreclosure and order of sale. Defendants appealed, and filed the stay bond provided by Section 551, subdivision 4, L. O. L. Whereupon plaintiff filed the counter undertaking required by Section 553, L. O. L., and caused execution to issue, and the property was advertised for sale. Defendant applies for an order of tbis court enjoining such sale pending the appeal.
Allowed.
For appellants there was a brief and an oral argument by Mr. William P. Lord.
For respondent, Williams Avenue Planing Mill, there was a brief over the names of Mr. Arthur H. Lewis and Messrs. Kollock & Zollinger, with an oral argument by Mr. Lewis.

Opinion:
Opinion by
Mr. Chief Justice McBride.
There is only one question arising upon this application. The section last cited provides that a counter bond may be given in case the judgment or decree appealed from be in "an action or suit upon a contract," and the judgment enforced notwithstanding the appeal. We are of the opinion that a suit to foreclose a mechanic's lien is not a suit upon a contract, but rather a suit to enforce a claim arising by operation of law: Boisot on Mechanics' Liens, § 5; Benbow v. The James Johns, 56 Or. 554, 560 (108 Pac. 634); Miner v. Moore, 53 Tex. 224, 228; Davis etc. Co. v. Vice et al., 15 Ind. App. 117, 119 (43 N. E. 889).
It is settled by the case of Livesley v. Krebs Hop Co., 57 Or. 352 (97 Pac. 718, 107 Pac. 460, 112 Pac. 1), that this court has the power to issue a temporary injunction to preserve the status quo of property pending an appeal.
The temporary injunction heretofore issued will therefore be continued in force until this cause is finally heard and determined upon appeal.
Application for Injunction Allowed.
Mr. Justice Eakin, Mr. Justice McNary and Mr. Justice Bean concur.