Piping Specialties Co., Inc. v. Kentile, Inc.

California Court of Appeal Sep 10, 1964 No. Civ. 27684Published

Before: Kingsley

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a supplier is a subcontractor rather than a materialman only if they perform a substantial part of the work in accordance with project-specific plans and specifications, rather than supplying standard stock-in-trade items. Because the trial court found the fittings were standard items rather than uniquely designed for the project, the supplier was correctly classified as a materialman, precluding a mechanic's lien.

Issues

Whether the supplier was a subcontractor or a materialman for the purpose of establishing a mechanic's lien.
Whether the work performed by the supplier was 'substantial' under the Theisen standard.
Whether the items supplied were manufactured 'in accord with the plans and specifications' of the prime contract.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“the essential feature which constitutes one a subcontractor rather than a materialman is that in the course of performance of the prime contract he constructs a definite, substantial part of the work of improvement”

“The acceptance of this view by the trial court is binding on us and supports its judgment.”

KINGSLEY, J. —

Defendant Kentile, Inc. (hereinafter “Kentile”) is the owner of real property in Los Angeles County. It contracted with defendant W. W. Price and Company (hereinafter “Price”) for the construction by the latter of a “tank farm” in connection with a plant erected by Kentile on that property. Price, in turn, contracted with defendant Gray Fabrications Co. (hereinafter “Gray”) for the fabrication and delivery of certain jacketed fittings, consisting of ells, tees and spools, to be used in the performance of Price’s construction contract. Gray, in its turn, purchased from plaintiff (hereinafter “Piping”) materials which were used by Gray in filling its contract with Price.

Price has paid Gray all monies due the latter under the contract between them except for a nominal sum of $94.23, and has received from Gray a release of any lien rights which Gray might have had. Gray is an adjudicated bankrupt, and Piping holds an unpaid claim against Gray, in the amount of $9,107.04, for the materials furnished by Piping to Gray.

Piping duly filed its mechanic’s lien against the property and thereafter brought the present action, seeking a foreclosure of that lien and for judgment against Kentile and Price for the unpaid balance of its account. After a trial, judgment was entered against plaintiff and it has appealed.

As presented to us, the sole question is the status of Gray—

i.e.,

whether Gray was a subcontractor of Price or a material-man. It is conceded that a supplier of a materialman is not entitled to a lien, but that a supplier of a subcontractor is. The trial court found that Gray was a materialman and it

[588]

is this finding (expressed in several findings of fact and conclusions of law) which is here attacked.

The line of distinction between materialmen and subcontractors has arisen in numerous cases. Both parties agree that, insofar as the present ease is concerned, we start with a definition laid down by the Supreme Court in

Theisen

County of Los Angeles

Piping Specialties Co., Inc. v. Kentile, Inc.

AI Brief

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief