Court Opinion

ID: 9574416
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 21:04:46.531532+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:44:31.916557
License: Public Domain

Harrison, J.,
dissenting.
I am unable to subscribe to the opinion of the majority. In Bristol Iron & Steel Co. v. Thomas, 93 Va. 396, 400, 401, 25 S.E. 110, 111, 112 (1896), Judge Keith, referring to a mechanic’s lien, said:
“The object of the law in creating liens in favor of mechanics was to secure to a deserving class of men the fruits of their labor. The statute upon the subject is remedial in its nature, and while courts require a strict compliance with all that the statute prescribes for the completion or perfecting of the lien, and cannot by construction supply any failure or omission upon the part of the claimant, and to this extent may be said to place a strict construction upon the statute, as being an innovation upon the common law, yet when the mechanic has done all that it is necessary for him to do, has performed the work or supplied the material, and perfected his lien therefor in the prescribed mode, the duty of the courts is to see that those whom the law intended to protect shall enjoy the advantages which it confers.”
*499The statute gives to all persons performing labor or furnishing materials for the construction of buildings a lien, if properly perfected. The mechanic, Neff, performed the work, supplied the material and perfected his lien therefor in the prescribed mode. He brought himself within the class “whom the law intended to protect” and who should “enjoy the advantages which it confers”.
Neff then brought a suit on January 24, 1974, to enforce his lien. He alleged in his bill, which was sworn to, that his suit was commenced “within 6 months from the filing of the memorandum of mechanic’s lien”. This allegation could only apply to the memorandum which was filed on August 2, 1973, for it was the only one filed within the six-month period alleged. Further, the defendants to Neff’s suit included both George S. Garrard and Ilona S. Garrard. There exists only one memorandum in which these two persons are designated as the “owners” and it is the one which was filed on August 2, 1973. The only live monument of Neff’s mechanic’s lien on January 24, 1974, was the August 2, 1973 memorandum. Counsel for Neff sought to enforce a valid lien (1) which had been given Neff by operation of law; (2) which he had perfected within the 60-day period as required by statute; and (3) which was being enforced within the 6-month statutory limitation period terminating January 23, 1974. The attachment, as an exhibit to the bill of complaint, of the July 10, 1973 memorandum rather than the August 2, 1973 memorandum was obviously done in error.
Neff did not seek to set up a new cause of action or claim, or to make a new demand. Regardless of the number of memoranda he had filed, he only had one mechanic’s lien and, on January 23, 1974 that lien was evidenced by the August 2 memorandum. He did not seek to add new parties. He sought only an amendment, the purpose of which was to withdraw an exhibit erroneously filed and to substitute the memorandum of mechanic’s lien which had been filed within six months prior to January 23, 1974, as alleged in his bill.
I therefore conclude that the trial court, in furtherance of justice, should have granted appellant’s motion to amend his bill of complaint. The injustice that may be done to this mechanic and the financial loss he may suffer are out of all proportion to the alleged defect or imperfection of his pleading.
Cochran, J., joins in this dissent.