Nicolai v. Van Fridagh
Citations
- 23 Or. 149
- 31 P. 288
- 1892 Ore. LEXIS 120
Syllabus
<p>1. Mechanics’ Lien — Notice — Amount Due. — While the mechanics’ lien law will be liberally construed, it is essential to the validity of a lien that the notice or claim filed shall on its face show a substantial compliance wiih the provisions of the law, and none of the essential requirements .of the statute can be dispensed with. Kezartee v. Marks, 15 Or. 529 (16 Pac. Rep. 407), and Gordon v. Deal, 23 Or .post, 153 (31 Pac. Rep. 287), approved and followed.</p> <p>2. Idem. — Under section 3673, Hill’s Code, the notice or claim of lien must contain a true statement of the amount actually due; and a mistake in that statement will render the lien void, unless the mistake is one about the amount or price of labor, or the quantity or value of material furnished, in regard to which there might be an honest difference of opinion.</p>
Judges: Bean
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
10 cases in this archive cite this case.
- Christman v. SalwayOregon Supreme Court· 1922-03-28· cited 48×
- Coffey v. SmithOregon Supreme Court· 1908-11-17· cited 20×
- Duby v. HicksOregon Supreme Court· 1922-07-25· cited 19×
- Willamette Mills Co. v. SheaOregon Supreme Court· 1893-04-11· cited 18×
- Equitable Savings & Loan Ass'n v. HewittOregon Supreme Court· 1910-01-18· cited 13×
- Bartels v. McCulloughOregon Supreme Court· 1921-11-15· cited 13×
- Rowland v. HarmonOregon Supreme Court· 1893-10-23· cited 11×
- Craig v. Crystal Realty Co.Oregon Supreme Court· 1918-05-28· cited 9×
- Western Savings Co. v. CurreyOregon Supreme Court· 1901-06-17· cited 6×
- Bloom v. McCluskeyD. Alaska· 1925-10-26· cited 1×
Cites
10 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- Gerard B. Allen & Co. v. Frumet Mining & Smelting Co.Supreme Court of Missouri· 1881-04-15· cited 42×
- Gordon v. DealOregon Supreme Court· 1892-11-07· cited 24×
- Albrecht v. C. C. Foster Lumber Co.Indiana Supreme Court· 1890-12-16· cited 22×
- Black v. AppolonioMontana Supreme Court· 1871-01-15· cited 17×
- Stubbs v. Clarinda, College Springs & South-Western R'y Co.Supreme Court of Iowa· 1885-03-18· cited 17×
- Harmon v. San Francisco & San Rafael RailroadCalifornia Supreme Court· 1890-12-08· cited 14×
- Bank of Charleston v. CurtissSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1847-07-15· cited 14×
- Hopkins v. ForresterSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1872-10-15· cited 9×
- Beyerstedt v. Winona Mill Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota· 1892-03-10· cited 9×
- Harrington v. DollmanIndiana Supreme Court· 1878-11-15· cited 5×
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.