Court Opinion

ID: 8636897
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-11-24 19:46:43.62217+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:55:57.536798
License: Public Domain

HELD
BY THE COURT:
That if it can be fairly inferred from the stipulations of the contract that the libelants meant to trust to the personal responsibility' of the owner, the contract is inconsistent with the exercise of a lien, and the same is waived. [Raymond v. Tyson] 17 How. [58 U. S.] 53. And it would also be waived if an unconditional credit were given for the payment extending beyond the time for which a lien is given by .the state law. [Peyroux v. Howard] 7 Pet [32 U. S.] 324. That the fair import of the lien law of this state is that the material man shall have a lien for what the owner agrees to give him in payment for his work and materials, provided that which is agreed to be given is by the agreement to be given before the expiration of the time allowed by law for the lien to exist. That the owners of the Highlander agreed to pay the libelant by a note at three months, to be given when the work was finished, and for the fulfillment of that payment the libelant had a lien; and if the note for $1,400, at three months, had been given or tendered by the owner, the lien would have ceased, and in that ease there would have been a credit extending beyond the time allowed by the state law for the existence of the lien. But, the note not having been given or tendered, the libelants still have a lien upon the boat, as well for the balance upon the contract as for the extra work. Decree for libelants, with a reference to.ascertain the amount.