Santa Monica Lumber & Mill Co. v. Hege

Mechanic's Lien—Contract fob Materials—Record, when not Required. Where a lessee, for the purpose of constructing certain additions to the premises leased, purchased materials therefor of less value than one thousand dollars, the provisions of the code relating to a written contract and filing the same for record have no application.

Id.—Lien fob Materials—Time for Notice—Completion of Building— Premature Filing.—The lessee having caused the improvements to be constructed for himself, the party furnishing the materials was not an original contractor, and must file a notice of lien within thirty days after the completion of the building; and unless the building • was completed before the notice of lien was filed, the filing was premature, and conferred no right to enforce the lien.

Id.—Finding—Completion before Notice—Date Immaterial—Conflict of Evidence.—A finding that the building was completed at a particular date, which was prior to the notice of lien, is not material so far as the date is concerned; and though there may be no evidence as-to the date of completion, it is sufficient that there is evidence tending to show that the building was completed before the notice ot lien was filed, and the finding cannot be disturbed on account of conflicting evidence upon that issue.

Id.—Test of Completion—Absence of Plans—Presumption—Matters not Included—Trivial Imperfection.—In the absence of any plans of the building, or means of test by which it could be determined when the building was completed, its completion must be determined by the court from all the circumstances of the case shown by the evidence; and where it appeared that no sidewalk was ever constructed, that the building was never painted, and that no eave-troughs or waterclosets were ever constructed, it is to be presumed, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, that the original plans of the building, did not include any of these matters and the court might properly so find; and the failure to make the ridge of the roof tight, and to putty the glass on the outside, is merely a defective performance of the work rather than a failure of completion, and was properly disregarded as a “trivial imperfection.”

Id.—Construction by Lessee—Liability of Owner—Absence of Notice.— Where improvements to the building were constructed by the lessee with the previous knowledge and permission of the owner, his failure to give the notice required by section 1192 of the Code of Civil Procedure rendered his interest in the land subject to the lien of one furnishing materials for the improvements; and it is immaterial whether they were constructed in the particular form, or at the particular place which was authorized by the owner.

Id.—Void Notice of Lien—Incorrect Statement as to Contract Price— Variance.—The right to enforce a mechanic’s Ken depends upon a compliance with the statute; and not only must the notice of lien contain the statements required by section 1187 of the Code of Civil Procedure, but the statements thus made must be in accordance with the facts, and if they are not correctly stated the right to a lien is lost; and though proof that the contract was for the “regular market price” is not a substantial variance from an allegation that the contract was for what the materials were reasonably worth; yet where the notice incorrectly stated the amount of the balance due as the amount of the contract price of the lumber, and that no part thereof had been paid, proof that the contract was for a considerably larger price and that payments had been made thereon, shows a fatal variance in the terms of the contract from that stated in the notice, and renders the notice of lien defective and void.