Pierson Lumber Co. v. Roehm

Ohio Court of Appeals

Pierson Lumber Co. v. Roehm

183 N.E. 795, 43 Ohio App. 515, 12 Ohio Law. Abs. 199, 1932 Ohio App. LEXIS 397

DecidedApril 4, 1932

StatusPublished

This text of 183 N.E. 795 (Pierson Lumber Co. v. Roehm) 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

Pierson Lumber Co. v. Roehm, 183 N.E. 795, 43 Ohio App. 515, 12 Ohio Law. Abs. 199, 1932 Ohio App. LEXIS 397 (Ohio Ct. App. 1932).

Pincite

Opinion

ROSS, PJ.

Rowekamp and Kasley, Inc., filed cross-petitions asserting liens. The trial court decided adversely to these lien claimants, and they perfected appeals. The cases were appealed thereby for the purposes and as to all parties.

The motion to dismiss the appeals as to Leslie J. Roehm, another cross-petitioning lien claimant, whose lien was sustained by the trial court, will, therefore, be overruled. The liens of only three claimants are disputed. The lien of Leslie J. Roehm was based upon his service as an architect, and under authority of Clapp Co. v Fox, 124 Oh *200 St, 333, such lien can not be sustained; an architect not having a lienable claim.

The lien of B. J. Rowekamp is based upon the furnishing and erecting of three fire escapes “To Charles T. Roehm, Jr., Owner and Contractor.” He failed to comply with the provisions of §8312, GC, requiring the delivery to the owner of a preliminary statement, showing the names of subcontractors, persons furnishing material, with accompanying certificate indicating the amount charged and character of material and labor furnished. It is claimed that because his contract was direct with the owner, he was relieved from filing such statement and several Michigan cases are cited in support of this claim, as well as decisions of our Supreme Court, following the Michigan Court on other points in the lien law, wherein the Ohio and Michigan lien laws are identical.

In spite of such decisions we are unable to escape the mandatory force of the statute, which has been construed by our own Supreme Court to require the statements mentioned in §8312, GC, in a case almost identical to the one at bar. Van Dorn Iron Works Co. v Erie-Huron Realty Co., et, 108 Oh St, 314. See also: Matzinger et v Harvard Lumber Co., 115 Oh St, 555.

The lien of Lee Kasley, Inc., is based upon a written contract in which it is stated: “I hereby accept your bid of $1309.55 for furnishing all labor and material listed in “Electric Work” and vestibule telephones and letter box specifications.” This contract was also made directly with the owner.

The authorities noted hereinbefore dispose of the claim of this lien claimant also.

Decrees may be entered accordingly, similar to that entered in the Court of Common Pleas, except as hereinbefore indicated in the case of the claim of Leslie J. Roehm.

HAMILTON and CUSHING, JJ, concur.

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

ROSS, PJ.

Rowekamp and Kasley, Inc., filed cross-petitions asserting liens. The trial court decided adversely to these lien claimants, and they perfected appeals. The cases were appealed thereby for the purposes and as to all parties.

The motion to dismiss the appeals as to Leslie J. Roehm, another cross-petitioning lien claimant, whose lien was sustained by the trial court, will, therefore, be overruled. The liens of only three claimants are disputed. The lien of Leslie J. Roehm was based upon his service as an architect, and under authority of Clapp Co. v Fox, 124 Oh *200 St, 333, such lien can not be sustained; an architect not having a lienable claim.

The lien of B. J. Rowekamp is based upon the furnishing and erecting of three fire escapes “To Charles T. Roehm, Jr., Owner and Contractor.” He failed to comply with the provisions of §8312, GC, requiring the delivery to the owner of a preliminary statement, showing the names of subcontractors, persons furnishing material, with accompanying certificate indicating the amount charged and character of material and labor furnished. It is claimed that because his contract was direct with the owner, he was relieved from filing such statement and several Michigan cases are cited in support of this claim, as well as decisions of our Supreme Court, following the Michigan Court on other points in the lien law, wherein the Ohio and Michigan lien laws are identical.

In spite of such decisions we are unable to escape the mandatory force of the statute, which has been construed by our own Supreme Court to require the statements mentioned in §8312, GC, in a case almost identical to the one at bar. Van Dorn Iron Works Co. v Erie-Huron Realty Co., et, 108 Oh St, 314. See also: Matzinger et v Harvard Lumber Co., 115 Oh St, 555.

The lien of Lee Kasley, Inc., is based upon a written contract in which it is stated: “I hereby accept your bid of $1309.55 for furnishing all labor and material listed in “Electric Work” and vestibule telephones and letter box specifications.” This contract was also made directly with the owner.

The authorities noted hereinbefore dispose of the claim of this lien claimant also.

Decrees may be entered accordingly, similar to that entered in the Court of Common Pleas, except as hereinbefore indicated in the case of the claim of Leslie J. Roehm.

HAMILTON and CUSHING, JJ, concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

183 N.E. 795, 43 Ohio App. 515, 12 Ohio Law. Abs. 199, 1932 Ohio App. LEXIS 397, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pierson-lumber-co-v-roehm-ohioctapp-1932.