Skip to main content
· 12/31/1903

Spaulding v. Burke

Citations

  • 33 Wash. 679
  • 74 P. 829
  • 1903 Wash. LEXIS 571

Syllabus

<p>Mechanics’ Liens—Services oe Architect—Partnership with Owner—Lienable and Non-lienable Items; Where one member of a firm of architects individually enters into a partnership arrangement with the owner of premises, whereby he acquires an interest in a building in consideration of plans and services as an architect in the construction thereof, and subsequently he withdraws from such arrangement in consideration of $1,500 to be paid by the owner, $900 of which he claims for his interest in the premises, and $600 for his services as architect, he can not claim a mechanics’ lien against the building for the $900 agreed to be paid in release of his interest in the partnership.</p> <p>Same—Application oe Payments—Accounting with Associates—Release oe Lien. Where $1,000 is paid on such contract, and the architect accounts to his firm for the $600 due for architect’s services, such accounting amounts to an application of the payment to the charge for architect’s services, and he can not subsequently apply the payment in liquidation of the part of the contract not covering lienable items, nor enforce a mechanics’ lien against the building for the balance due.</p> <p>Same—Foreclosure oe Lien—Personal Judgment on Failure oe Lien. In an action to foreclose a mechanics’ lien in which the lien fails, personal judgment may be entered against a defendant personally liable for the claim, but without costs incident to the lien.</p> <p>Appeal—Review—Findings—General Exception. Where a' finding that a contract was made by a husband and wife is not excepted to by the .wife otherwise than by a general exception to the judgment, the wife can not urge for the first time on appeal that there was no testimony connecting her with the contract.</p> <p>Pleading—Counter Claim—Damages for Breach of Contract— Estoppel—Pleading Payment in Pull. In an action upon a contract for architect's services, the defendant, by attempting to show a voluntary payment in full is estopped to claim damages for

Judges: Hadley

Read full opinion on CourtListener

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.