Littell v. Saulsberry

Citations

• 40 Wash. 550
• 82 P. 909
• 1905 Wash. LEXIS 1024

Syllabus

<p>Mechanics’ Liens — Building Materials — Foreclosure—Parties. Where a contractor was doing business under the name of “Western Mill Factory,” a contract made with him in such name shows that he is the real party in interest entitled to enforce a mechanics’ lien, therefor.</p> <p>Contracts — Assent—Construction—Extras. Where a written offer to furnish mill material for a building at a certain sum, extras to be paid for at a reasonable price, was accepted upon condition that there should be no charge for extras, and thereafter the contract is acted upon without further communication, the contractor must be held to have assented, and cannot recover for extras.</p> <p>Mechanics’ Liens — Attorney's Fees — Constitutionality. Bal. Code, § 5811, authorizing an attorney’s fee in favor of the plaintiff in an action to foreclose a mechanics’ lien, is not unconstitutional.</p> <p>Mechanics’ Liens — Attorney’s Fees — Amount. Where the only contest in an action to foreclose a mechanics’ lien was over the sum of $73.63, demanded for extras, the allowance of $100 for attorney’s fees is exorbitant, and should be reduced to $50, in the absence of satisfactory evidence in the record as to what a reasonable fee would be.</p> <p>Same — Evidence. Upon an issue as to the reasonable value of an attorney’s fee for the foreclosure of a mechanics’ lien, cross-examination as to the amount involved in the case is proper.</p>