Opinion ID: 1690227
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Filing of Suit.

Text: ¶ 14. Further comparison of the 1906 and 1918 statutes is helpful: 1906 Statute 1918 Statute and if, after and if, after such notice, the contractor or master workman notice, the contractor or master workman shall bring suit against the owner, the shall bring suit against the owner, the latter may pay into court the amount due latter may pay into court the amount due on the contract; on the contract; and and the person giving notice thereupon all persons entitled hereunder, so far as known, shall be shall be made parties and summoned summoned into court to to protect their rights, contest the demand of such contractor or contest the demand of such contractor or master workman; master workman and other claimants; ¶ 15. We interpret the statute to provide that, once a suit is filed, all interested persons, so far as known, shall be made a party to the suit. The subcontractors argue that since all parties are entitled to notice when suit is filed, the filing of a single stop-notice should also be interpreted to protect all. The reasons for providing all known persons notice once a suit has been filed are obvious. By this point all negotiations have broken off, any debts owed are disputed, and to adjudicate a dispute in a construction project, all interested persons should have notice. The filing of a stop payment notice, on the other hand, comes before matters have deteriorated and ideally will prevent the need for the filing of a lawsuit by encouraging disputes to be resolved between the subcontractor seeking payment and the general contractor/owner. As no lawsuit was filed by the subcontractors, we affirm the Court of Appeals' finding that a subcontractor is not required to give notice to all known persons that he has given an owner/subcontractor a stop-payment notice.