Court Opinion

ID: 9676608
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 05:28:33.824407+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:49.613804
License: Public Domain

Darrell Hickman, Justice, concurring in part; dissenting in part. I agree with the decision except for the claim of National Lumber Company. National Lumber Company engaged in a practice not uncommon in the building business: it financed the contractor in this case on several jobs and applied any payments, not designated, to the oldest account. In short, it was financing the contractor and protecting itself to the detriment of other materialmen. A materialman that accepts payments from a contractor ought to be duty bound to ascertain the source of the payment before applying it to an account. I would deny its lien on the basis of estoppel and unclean hands. While there was no evidence of a “secret agreement,” the practice amounts to a fraud. A material-man can retire old, stale debts and keep its latest account ripe for a materialman’s lien. Purtle and Dudley, JJ., join.