Pacific Manufacturing Co. v. Brown

Citations

• 8 Wash. 347
• 36 P. 273
• 1894 Wash. LEXIS 65

Syllabus

<p>MECHANIC’S LIENS — LIMITATIONS — MORTGAGES — LIS PENDENS — NOTICE — ATTORNEY AND CLIENT.</p> <p>Where proceedings to enforce a mechanic’s lien have been commenced within the time limited by § 1670, Gen. Stat., the fact that judgment is not rendered until after the expiration of such limitation will not defeat the lien.</p> <p>Where a lien claimant’s right to lien accrues subsequent to the commencement of a mortgage foreclosure suit on the premises, and such lien claimant has actual knowledge of such suit, and does not seek, by intervening or otherwise, to protect his rights, he is bound by the judgment in such foreclosure suit.</p> <p>In a proceeding to enforce a lien against premises which have been sold under decree in a suit for foreclosure of a mortgage, to which the lien claimant was not made a party nor had knowledge thereof through notice of Us pendens, the burden of proof is upon the party claiming under the foreclosure sale to establish by a clear preponderance of the evidence that the lien claimant had actual knowledge of the pendency of the foreclosure suit.</p> <p>The fact that the attorney for the plaintiff in the mortgage foreclosure suit was the attorney for the claimant in the lien foreclosure suit, will not charge the lien claimant with notice of the pendency of the suit to foreclose the mortgage.</p> <p>Where a material man refuses to furnish materials for a building under his contract with the contractor, but makes a new contract with another party for furnishing materials for the completion of the building, his claim of lien for materials under the old contract must be filed within ninety days after ceasing to furnish materials thereundér.</p>