Davis v. Methodist Protestant Church of Haynesville

Supreme Court of Louisiana

Davis v. Methodist Protestant Church of Haynesville

111 So. 794, 163 La. 384, 1927 La. LEXIS 1639

CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana

DecidedFebruary 28, 1927

DocketNo. 26438.

StatusPublished

This text of 111 So. 794 (Davis v. Methodist Protestant Church of Haynesville) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Louisiana primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Davis v. Methodist Protestant Church of Haynesville, 111 So. 794, 163 La. 384, 1927 La. LEXIS 1639 (La. 1927).

Pincite

Opinion

ST. PAUL, ,T.

The defendant’s church was built by Tull & Sample, contractors, and plaintiff (a partnership) became sureties on the bond given by the contractors for the faithful execution of the work; which of course included the obligation to deliver the building free of incumbrances arising from liens for materials purchased by the contractors and not paid for, even though not specially mentioned. .

I.

Plaintiffs furnished certain material to the ■ contractor which were not paid for, and ,now claim a lien on the building.

The defense is that the lien was not recorded in time; that, in any event, plaintiffs, being sureties on the bond given by the contractors as aforesaid, are estopped from proceeding against the building contrary to their guaranty that the contractor would faithfully do the work (and deliver it free of liens); and in the alternative, defendant prays for judgment, on the bond, against plaintiff for a like amount as claimed.

II.

The trial judge rejected plaintiffs’ claim on the ground that the lien was not recorded in time. But we find it unnecessary to lbok into that phase of the ease, since plaintiffs are clearly estopped by their bond from proceeding against the building.

Manifestly, as we have said, an engagement to erect a building at one’s own expense for labor and materials cannot be faithfully performed by failing to pay for the materials and leaving them to be paid through liens filed against the building. And since plaintiffs bound themselves to see that the obligation of the contractors was faithfully performed, it follows that they are estopped from asserting liens against the building the result of which would be that the contractors would not have faithfully performed their obligations under the contract.

Decree.

The judgment appealed from is therefore affirmed.

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

ST. PAUL, ,T.

The defendant’s church was built by Tull & Sample, contractors, and plaintiff (a partnership) became sureties on the bond given by the contractors for the faithful execution of the work; which of course included the obligation to deliver the building free of incumbrances arising from liens for materials purchased by the contractors and not paid for, even though not specially mentioned. .

I.

Plaintiffs furnished certain material to the ■ contractor which were not paid for, and ,now claim a lien on the building.

The defense is that the lien was not recorded in time; that, in any event, plaintiffs, being sureties on the bond given by the contractors as aforesaid, are estopped from proceeding against the building contrary to their guaranty that the contractor would faithfully do the work (and deliver it free of liens); and in the alternative, defendant prays for judgment, on the bond, against plaintiff for a like amount as claimed.

II.

The trial judge rejected plaintiffs’ claim on the ground that the lien was not recorded in time. But we find it unnecessary to lbok into that phase of the ease, since plaintiffs are clearly estopped by their bond from proceeding against the building.

Manifestly, as we have said, an engagement to erect a building at one’s own expense for labor and materials cannot be faithfully performed by failing to pay for the materials and leaving them to be paid through liens filed against the building. And since plaintiffs bound themselves to see that the obligation of the contractors was faithfully performed, it follows that they are estopped from asserting liens against the building the result of which would be that the contractors would not have faithfully performed their obligations under the contract.

Decree.

The judgment appealed from is therefore affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

111 So. 794, 163 La. 384, 1927 La. LEXIS 1639, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/davis-v-methodist-protestant-church-of-haynesville-la-1927.