Daniger v. Hunter

MUSSELL, J.

This is an action to foreclose a mechanic’s lien and to recover judgment for the purchase price of three “sink” units installed in premises owned by the defendants in Costa Mesa. Defendants appeal from the judgment and decree of foreclosure.

The defendants employed a contractor to remodel their house and garage into four apartments. The contractor agreed to install certain kitchen units similar to those here involved. Subsequently, three sink units were delivered to

[797]

defendants’ premises by the plaintiffs. The contractor who had commenced the remodeling job ceased his operations on February 27, 1950, and one Charles Lusk was employed by the defendants to finish the job. The units were then installed by Lusk.

Each sink unit consisted of a gas stove, a sink and a refrigerator, the three fitting together as one unit. The stove was not. connected to the sink and was not connected to the building in any manner except by a gas pipe connection. The sink was connected to the building by the usual plumbing connections and the refrigerator by an electric plug. The unit was so constructed that the drainboard of the sink extended over the refrigerator and was supported by it.

Some time after the installation of these appliances, plaintiffs demanded payment for the purchase price thereof and after payment was refused by the defendants, plaintiffs filed for record a notice of mechanic’s lien and thereafter commenced this action. The complaint contained two causes of action: one for foreclosure of lien and the other on the theory of implied contract.

The trial court found that the defendants were indebted to the plaintiffs in the sum of $1,195.83 for the three sink units; that said units were actually used in the construction and remodeling of said building and that said sink units, after being installed, became an actual part of the apartment building. The court concluded that the plaintiffs were entitled to judgment against defendants for the above stated sum, with interest, and that plaintiffs had a lien upon the real property, which lien they were entitled to foreclose for the sum found due them.

Appellants present two arguments on appeal. They first contend that “appliances” such as kitchen ranges, refrigerators and sinks not attached to the dwelling are not materials furnished within the meaning of the mechanic’s lien law and the furnishing of the same does not give rise to the right to a mechanic’s lien; and second, that the court erred in rendering judgment on the common count.