Frisch v. Ammon

Ohio Court of Appeals

Frisch v. Ammon

171 N.E. 247, 34 Ohio App. 447, 8 Ohio Law. Abs. 158, 1929 Ohio App. LEXIS 368

CourtOhio Court of Appeals

DecidedNovember 14, 1929

Docket3518

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 171 N.E. 247 (Frisch v. Ammon) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Frisch v. Ammon, 171 N.E. 247, 34 Ohio App. 447, 8 Ohio Law. Abs. 158, 1929 Ohio App. LEXIS 368 (Ohio Ct. App. 1929).

Pincite

Opinion

ROSS, J.

The statement made by the lienholder in question contained the remark, under the title “Material”, “All material taken out of stock”. The record affirmatively shows, in the cross-examination of the lienholder that material was used upon the job not taken out of stock, furnished by supply houses.

The pertinent portion of 8312 GC, is as follows:

“The original contractor shall x x make out and give to the owner x x x a statement under oath, showing the name of every laborer in his employ who has not been paid in full and also showing the name of every subcontractor in his employ, and of every person furnishing machinery, material or fuel, and giving the .amount if any, which is due or to become due to them, or any of them, for work done, or machinery, matreial or fuel furnished to him, which statement shall be accompanied by a certificate signed by every person furnishing machinery, material or fuel to him, x x x x”.

Under these facts the provisions of section 8312 were not followed, and the lien, under the provisions of that section, providing that no right of action or lien against the owner shall be maintained ufitil the statements were filed as required, was void against the mortgage.

It is claimed that if the material men were paid it is not necessary to list them. We construe the statute otherwise, and as requiring the listing of all persons for furnishing material whether paid or unpaid at the time of furnishing the statement.

For these reasons, the decision of the court of common pleas will be reversed, and there being no dispute as to the evidence, and the question being one purely of law, we hold that the lien of the A. M. ,-Lewin Lumber Company, by virtue of its second mortgage, is held prior to that of the lienholder,' George C. Ammon.

An entry may be presented accordingly.

Cushing, PJ., and Hamilton, J., concur.

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