Finlay v. Tagholm

Citations

• 62 Wash. 341
• 113 P. 1083
• 1911 Wash. LEXIS 705

Syllabus

<p>Mechanics’ Liens — Materialman—Contract—Evidence—Sufficiency. A corporation did not furnish material on the credit of the owners of the property, where it appears that it furnished the same under an agreement with contractors, and the alleged substitution of the credit of the owners was by an agent without authority, and at a later time than alleged, it being after part of the materials were furnished.</p> <p>Same — Notice—Duplicate Statements. Under Rem. & Bal. Code, § 1133, requiring duplicate statements of material furnished to contractors to be given to the owner at the time the materials are delivered, one duplicate statement, given when the last of the materials are furnished, is insufficient.</p> <p>Same — Duplicate Statement — Excuse. The duplicate statements to the owners of materials furnished to contractors, required by Rem. & Bal. Code, § 1133, to be given when the materials are furnished, is not excused by the fact that the owner had notice that .they were being furnished, said section providing that no material-man’s lien shall be filed unless the provisions of the statute are complied with.</p> <p>Same — Who is Materialman — Subcontractors. A corporation furnishing to contractors the sashes, doors and glass for a building is not a subcontractor or entitled to file a lien as such.</p>