Gordon v. Deal

Citations

• 23 Or. 153
• 31 P. 287
• 1892 Ore. LEXIS 121

Syllabus

<p>1. Mechanics’ Liens — Notice—Requirements oe Statute.— The statutory-requirements of a notice of lien are mandatory. Under section 3673, Hill’s Code, the name of the owner or reputed owner of the building or improvement upon which a lien is claimed must be stated in the notice or it is void. Kezartee v. Marks, 15 Or. 529 (16 Pac. Rep. 407), cited and approved.</p> <p>2. Idem. — It is not sufficient that the name of the owner appears in the notice incidentally or as part of the description of the property; but the iact that he is the owner of the building sought to be charged must appear as an independent matter on the face of the notice, either directly or by necessary inference.</p> <p>3. Mechanics’ Liens — Construction.— The right to a lien is purely of statutory creation. Whatever the statute makes necessary to its existence ■ must be complied with, and one claiming the benefit of that statute must bring himself clearly within its terms. Pilz v. Killinjsworth, 20 Or. 432 ( 26 Pac. Rep. 305), approved.</p> <p>4. Mechanics’ Liens — Notice—Ownership oe Building.— Anoticeoflien which states merely the lease to a certain person of the ground on which is situated the building sought to be charged, and, after describing the building and ground, and mentioning the owner of the ground, declares ■ the first-named person to be lessee of “ said property,” does not show either directly or by necessary inference who is the owner of the building, and does not therefore comply with section 3673 of Hill’s Code. Kezartee v. Marks, 15 Or. 529 (16 Pac. Rep. 407), distinguished.</p>