Smith Bros. Lumber Co. v. Johnson

Utah Supreme Court

Smith Bros. Lumber Co. v. Johnson

426 P.2d 811, 19 Utah 2d 107, 1967 Utah LEXIS 577

CourtUtah Supreme Court

DecidedApril 21, 1967

DocketNo. 10701

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 426 P.2d 811 (Smith Bros. Lumber Co. v. Johnson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Utah Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Smith Bros. Lumber Co. v. Johnson, 426 P.2d 811, 19 Utah 2d 107, 1967 Utah LEXIS 577 (Utah 1967).

Pincite

Opinion

HENRIOD, Justice.

Appeal from a judgment ordering foreclosure of a mechanic’s lien. Affirmed with costs to Smith.

Smith was a supplier of certain building materials. One Skabelund, owner of the property and a carpenter by trade, decided to improve his home and in doing so, bought materials from Smith on a credit open account sort of off-the-shelf fashion. When most of his work was done, he conveyed the home to appellant Johnson, who must have seen what was going on. Nonetheless, Skabelund, to his everlasting “credit;,” [108]*108finished the improvements which obviously-inured to the present and future benefit of ■Johnson. Trouble brewed when Skabelund neglected to pay Smith about a $600 balance he owed for purchase of products from Smith. The reason: Skabelund fled the realm and found refuge in an Arizona bankruptcy sanctuary.

Smith filed a mechanic’s lien 62 days after furnishing the last materials. The parties by stipulation asked this court to tell them if Smith was or was not an original contractor under the facts of this case, the answer to which would give him 80 days to file his lien, or only 60 if he were other than an original contractor.

Our answer is 80 days. We base it on the simple language of Title 38-1-2, Utah Code Annotated 1953,¹ the facts of this case, which essentially are the same as those of Holbrook v. Webster’s, Inc.² and the statement of Mr. Justice Worthen in that unanimous opinion.³ There is no question here about ownership. It is true that in the Hol-brook case, the issue reflected in the statement was an answer to one of two issues, the other being whether a release of lien had been effected. True, also, is the fact that the latter was the decisive issue, needing no further affirmation by the former. However, irrespective of that fact, and assuming that Mr. Justice Worthen’s commentary conceivably may have been obiter, nonetheless we now adopt that conclusion and language as the law of this case. This decision has to do only with the question of who may or may not be an original contractor — nothing else.

CROCKETT, C. J., and CALLISTER, TUCKETT and ELLETT, JJ., concur.

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

HENRIOD, Justice.

Appeal from a judgment ordering foreclosure of a mechanic’s lien. Affirmed with costs to Smith.

Smith was a supplier of certain building materials. One Skabelund, owner of the property and a carpenter by trade, decided to improve his home and in doing so, bought materials from Smith on a credit open account sort of off-the-shelf fashion. When most of his work was done, he conveyed the home to appellant Johnson, who must have seen what was going on. Nonetheless, Skabelund, to his everlasting “credit;,” [108]*108finished the improvements which obviously-inured to the present and future benefit of ■Johnson. Trouble brewed when Skabelund neglected to pay Smith about a $600 balance he owed for purchase of products from Smith. The reason: Skabelund fled the realm and found refuge in an Arizona bankruptcy sanctuary.

Smith filed a mechanic’s lien 62 days after furnishing the last materials. The parties by stipulation asked this court to tell them if Smith was or was not an original contractor under the facts of this case, the answer to which would give him 80 days to file his lien, or only 60 if he were other than an original contractor.

Our answer is 80 days. We base it on the simple language of Title 38-1-2, Utah Code Annotated 1953,¹ the facts of this case, which essentially are the same as those of Holbrook v. Webster’s, Inc.² and the statement of Mr. Justice Worthen in that unanimous opinion.³ There is no question here about ownership. It is true that in the Hol-brook case, the issue reflected in the statement was an answer to one of two issues, the other being whether a release of lien had been effected. True, also, is the fact that the latter was the decisive issue, needing no further affirmation by the former. However, irrespective of that fact, and assuming that Mr. Justice Worthen’s commentary conceivably may have been obiter, nonetheless we now adopt that conclusion and language as the law of this case. This decision has to do only with the question of who may or may not be an original contractor — nothing else.

CROCKETT, C. J., and CALLISTER, TUCKETT and ELLETT, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

426 P.2d 811, 19 Utah 2d 107, 1967 Utah LEXIS 577, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smith-bros-lumber-co-v-johnson-utah-1967.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack