Huetter v. Redhead

Citations

• 31 Wash. 320
• 71 P. 1016
• 1903 Wash. LEXIS 629

Syllabus

<p>MECHANICS’ LIENS-FORECLOSURE-RESCISSION OF BUILDING CONTRACT -SUBSEQUENT ASSIGNMENT-RIGHTS OF ASSIGNEE.</p> <p>A building contract was abandoned by mutual consent of tbe parties, owing to tbe insolvency of tbe builder, and a lien was filed on tbe building for wbat was due tbe contractor. Tbe premises were sold by the owner to another, to whom he assigned the building contract. The assignee demanded that the contractor proceed with the building, and upon his refusal, the assignee finished the building at his own cost. Held, in an action for the foreclosure of the contractor’s lien, that the assignee could not apply the sum expended in the completion of the building against the claim of the contractor, as the building contract had provided, since that contract had in fact been rescinded prior to its assignment.</p> <p>SAME — AMOUNT DUE-CONTRACT PRICE — SOTEICIENCY OE EVIDENCE.</p> <p>In an action to enforce a mechanic’s lien for labor and material put into a building prior to the rescission of a building contract, the testimony of tne superintending architect that on the date of the rescission he made an estimate of all the work done and materials furnished and put into the building and that the reasonable value thereof according to the contract price was $15,193, to which should be added certain extras worth $689.28, for which plaintiff was entitled under the contract, was sufficient evidence, uncontradicted, to show that the estimate of the work done was based upon the contract price and not upon the quantum meruit.</p> <p>SAME — INTEREST.</p> <p>The allowance of interest prior to the date of a lien notice was erroneous, where the lien notice did not claim interest, and the complaint for foreclosure of the lien asked for interest only from the date of filing the notice.</p>