Bolster v. Stocks

Citations

• 13 Wash. 460
• 43 P. 1099
• 1896 Wash. LEXIS 71

Syllabus

<p>MECHANICS’ LIENS — SUFFICIENCY OF NOTICE — INCLUDING ITEMS NOT FURNISHED — OMISSION OF WIFE’S NAME—PROOF OF RECORD.</p> <p>Objections to the introduction of evidence will not be considered on appeal, unless the proper grounds of objection were called to the attention of the trial court.</p> <p>Proof of the filing within the time required by law for record in the office of the county auditor of a notice of lien is sufficient, without proof that it was actually recorded within such period.</p> <p>A claim of lien setting forth, in its statement of the terms of the contract, that the claimant was to “ furnish the hardware and other like material ” for a certain building, is sufficiently definite in that particular.</p> <p>Failure to include the name of the wife as one of the reputed owners of premises upon which a lien is claimed is not a ground of objection thereto, when it does not appear upon the face of the notice that the claimant had knowledge at that time of her interest therein.</p> <p>A statement in a claim of lien of the terms of the contract as to materials furnished is too indefinite, when it alleges merely that claimants “furnished certain goods, wares and merchandise, being iron, iron work, galvanized iron, nails, paints, glass and other building material.”'</p> <p>A claim of lien for furnishing the “ lumber, sash, doors, etc., used in the construction of [building described] at the agreed and contract price of $2,449.85,” is sufficiently definite as to the terms of the contract.</p> <p>A claim of lien is not vitiated by the inclusion therein by mistake of lienahle items, which had not been furnished, there being no attempt to perpetrate a fraud and the true amount of the claim not being increased thereby.</p>