Year: 1874

any BUILDING or other property. shall have lien,
hereafter provided, upon such properly and Sc
mGSn anI d as sna oe ne r,;nees tos ~,
the work done and materials furnished. But Ther
the claim Is for repairs only no lien shall atast
upon the properly repaired unless such repairs
were ordered by the owner Ct The property oc hii
agent.


self Of the lien given him by the preceding section
shall file within thirty days after the completion Of
the work In the clerks Ofice of the county or cor
poraton court of ibe county or corporation IL
which The property upon which lien Is sought 1
be Securtd Is situated and in the clerk once Of
the Chancery Court OF the Cdty of Richmond &her
the property is In said city. true account OF The
work done or materials furnished, sworn to by sale
claimant or his agent, With a statement attached
sgnfying hts intention to Calm the benefit Of sale
lien and setting forth brlet description of the
property upon which he claims the lien. 1t shall
be the duty of the clerk In whose Office such account
and statement shall be filed to record the same In
book kept for that purpose, and from the time OF
thereof


We have first to determine the meaning o


TIE WORDS GENERAL CoNTRAeToR"
used in the second section. .. -


Ia the case before us. the Masonic Build
ing Association OF the city of Norfolk, having
determined to erect in that city large and
expensive building for the use of the Asso
citation, made three separate and distinct con.
tracts with certain builders and mechanics
one with Charles DashielI, for the carpentry
or woodwork; one with William Rosson
for the brick-work, and one with Spaudips
& Gay, for the plumbing and gas.itting, and
also employed one G. E. Cassel as architect fol
designing and experimenting the building.
1t Is insisted by the learned counsel for the
appellant that none of these are "general
contractors" and that therefore they cannot
assert their liens under this act, and that the
demurrer to the bill ought to have been sus;
tained and the bill dismissed. He mailtsins
that a I" general contractor is one who con.
tracts for the building of the arhole house.
that is, every part of it, and that it Is only
to such q contractor that the lien is directly
given. And that when contracts are made
as in this case with different mechanics or
artisans for the completion of different parts
of building they acquire no lien. Such a
construction, think, is too narrow and
technical, and would in the great majority of
cases defeat the very object Of the statute.


The title of the act is IAN act in relation
to mechanics liens" and the whole scope and


OBJECT OF THE ACT a.r ''.
is to insure to this useful class of laborers
the certain and speedy rewards of their labor,
and to prevent the fruits Of their daily toll,
when matured, from being reaped by others.
To contine it to the very small class of general
in the sense Of these words as
by the appellants counsel, would
limit its effect to degree never intended by
the Legislature.


The first section indicates the scope Of the
act and ehumerates those entitled to the
lien-viz., all artisans, builders, mechanics,
and others performing Ia.
Dor, or furnishing materials for the con-
struction, repair, or improvement of any
building or other property" In this
section enumerating the class who
shall be entitled to lien the words "general
contractor are not used. They are useaa for .
the first time in the second section. There
being no words to limit the applicability
OF this term general contractor" to the
class enumerated in the first section, any one
of them may be a general contractor-the
lumber-man who furnishes the material as
well as the mechanic who does the work. 1t
is plain that the term "general contractor"
is not restricted to the contractor who I'm.
dertakes to complete every part of the work,
because the act in terms provides for the
man who does no part Of the work, but sim.
ply furnishes the material. He may be
'' general contractor" for he is one of


THE THREE ENUMERATED GLASSES.


Upon the face Of the whole act it is plain
the words "'general contractor are used in
contradistinction to the word sub.contrac-
tor. This contradistinction runs through
almost every section of the act. The gen.
eral contractor is required to do certain
things, and the sub:contractor is required to
do certain other things. The genera! con.
tractor acquires certain rights In one way,
and the sub.contractor IN another way.
This view is made conclusive by the fact
that in the third and tenth sections
the word contractor Is used as synonymous
with "general contractor" showing that the
word "general" has no specific import, but
is only used to make more palpable the dis
tnction between the contractor and sub
contractor. IL is obvious, looking to the
whole act, that a "generai contractor" II
the meaning Of the statute, is one who con
tracts directly with the owner Of the pro
perty, and whether his contract be to con
strtict q part or the whole of building, |
his contract is made with the owner he is {
general contractor in the meaning of the act
The


USUAL MODE OF BUILDING HOUSES


in the cities is not by making one entire con
tract for the construction of the entire build
ing, but different contracts for different
parts s-with the carpenter for the wood anG
with the brickayer for the brick-work, anC
so on, and any one of those who CONTRACT
directly with the owner is general con-
tractor as distinguished, from sub-con
tractor. Any other construction would
violate the very object of the act in. limiting
the association and would lead TO the crosses
Injustice and the most palpable absurdity
1t would be to hold that though mechanic
should build every part of house-brlck..
work, woodwork, plasteripg, and upholster'
ing, he could acquire no lien because CRATE
or gas.iXture vas put in by another; or ID
a contract for repairs, II painter has painted
whole house inside and out he could not
acquire a lien for his work because another
maa bad put on a lock, which was neces-
sary part Of the repairs, and therefore the
painter had not completed the whole WORK
of repairs, and was consequently not q
&. general contractor" This would be the
absurd consequence Of a literal lconstruction
of the words ;. general contractor"


But it is further argued, in behalf OF the
appellapts, that the appellees have acquired
no lien because the act requires that party
to avail himself Of


TIE LIEN GIVEN BY TIE ACT,


must file within thirty days after Tie com.
plet,on of the work, in the clerk office, u
account OF bis claim, with 0 statement sIgni'
tying bis intention to claim the beneht o.
said lien. He insists that by the terms el
the act the work must be completed
and the claim filed within thirty days
after completion to entltle tne party 70. q
lien. Now, In this case the Masonic bnlld'
ing Association failed to comply Wath tneit


dsronk cd dlSc0nHnlI.