Boyer v. DAWSON ET UX

295 P.2d 159, 293 P.2d 739, 207 Or. 211, 1956 Ore. LEXIS 377
CourtOregon Supreme Court
DecidedFebruary 23, 1956
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 295 P.2d 159 (Boyer v. DAWSON ET UX) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Oregon Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Boyer v. DAWSON ET UX, 295 P.2d 159, 293 P.2d 739, 207 Or. 211, 1956 Ore. LEXIS 377 (Or. 1956).

Opinions

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal by defendants from a decree foreclosing a mechanic’s lien on their property in Tillamook county, Oregon.

Defendant M. L. Dawson entered into a contract with plaintiff, Charles A. Boyer, whereby Boyer was to build a barn for defendants for the sum of $7,200, less the value of certain lumber which defendants agreed to furnish for the construction of the barn. In his complaint, plaintiff alleges that the value of such lumber was $1,200.

The lien notice which plaintiff filed was for the full $7,200 with no allowance for the $1,200 credit. The crucial question is, does this overstatement in the lien of the amount due plaintiff void the lien? The answer is yes.

The rule laid down by the Oregon ease is stated in Davis v. Bertschinger, 116 Or 127, 133, 241 P 53, as follows:

“One of the defenses urged is that the lien is invalid because it does not contain a true statement of plaintiffs’ demand after deducting all just credits and offsets’ as required by Section 10195, Or. L. This provision has been considered by this court in numerous cases, all of which hold that where a lien claimant, in filing his claim of lien, puts on record a statement of his demand which he knows, or by the exercise of reasonable diligence would know, to be untrue, his right to a lien is lost. But, if he honestly makes a misstatement as to any item of his account in good faith and without negligence or carelessness upon his part and no prejudice results [213]*213to the owner of the property affected thereby, the courts will not, for that reason alone, hold the lien to be void: * * V’
John W. Hathaway and H. T. Botts, Tillamook, for appellants.

See West v. Wilson et al., 136 Or 262, 297 P 847 and Drake Lumber Co. v. Paget Mortgage Co., 203 Or 66, 274 P2d 804.

In the instant case there was no honest misstatement concerning the account. Plaintiff knew when he filed the lien that defendant M. L. Dawson was entitled to a credit for the $1,200 represented by the lumber furnished. There is no legal excuse, in our opinion, for this misstatement.

Reversed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Hays v. Pigg
515 P.2d 924 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1973)
Gamble v. Woodlea Construction Co.
228 A.2d 243 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1967)
School District No. 1 Ex Rel. Lynch Co. v. Rushlight & Co.
375 P.2d 411 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1962)
Boyer v. Dawson
337 P.2d 785 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1959)
Boyer v. DAWSON ET UX
295 P.2d 159 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1956)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
295 P.2d 159, 293 P.2d 739, 207 Or. 211, 1956 Ore. LEXIS 377, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/boyer-v-dawson-et-ux-or-1956.