Willamette Steam Mills Co. v. Kremer

Mechanic’s Lien — Void Contract — Time for Piling Claim — Completion of Building — Previous Aooeptanoe. —Where a contract between the owner and a contractor for the erection of a building is void for want of filing in the recorder’s office before the work is commenced, a claim of lien for labor or materials may be filed at any time within thirty days after the actual completion of the building, irrespective of its previous acceptance and occupancy by the owner.

Id.—Time of Completion — Question of Fact—Appeal—Conflicting Evidence. —The time of completion of a building which is sought to be subjected to a mechanic’s lien is a question of fact for the trial court to determine, and its determination will not be disturbed upon appeal, where the evidence upon the question is conflicting.

Id. — “Trivial Imperfection” — Failure of Completion—Question of Fact. — Whether or not items of work done after the date at which the building is claimed to have been completed were to remedy “trivial imperfections,” is a question of fact for the trial conrt to determine. It cannot be said as matter of law that any failure of completion is a “trivial imperfection. ”

Id. — Claim of Lien—Description of Property — Question of Fact. — A description in a claim of lien of the property sought to be charged need not be full and precise, but it is sufficient if it enables a party familiar with the locality to identify the premises intended to be described with reasonable certainty, to the exclusion of others. As a general rule, the sufficiency of the description is a question of fact to be determined by the trial court.

Id. —False Description of Lot on Street Corner — Identification — Rejection of False Call. — Where a claim of lien stated that the materials had been furnished and used in a building which the owner had caused to be constructed “upon lot 6, in block 28, of the Huber tract, said lot being situate at the southwest corner of Hope and Eighth streets,” the description is sufficient, although that lot and block are on the northeast corner of the streets, and part of the building is on lot 7, it not appearing that any other building had been erected by the owner at the intersection of such streets, than the one at the northeast corner. The description of the block identifies the location of the lot, and the call for the “southwest” corner of the streets may be rejected as would be a false call in a deed of conveyance.

Id.—Foreclosure of Lien — Pleading — Amendment to Conform to Proofs—Insufficient Description — Sale of Entire Building.— In an action to foreclose a mechanic’s lien, where it is shown that the building sought to be charged is upon more land than is described in the complaint, but the claim of lien is sufficient to embrace the entire building, the court should direct an amendement to the complaint to conform to the proofs; and a decree directing the sale of only that part of the building which is upon the land described in the complaint is erroneous. The court should direct a sale of the entire building, and such land as it should determine to be required for the convenient use and occupation thereof.