Thelin v. Taylor

Oregon Supreme Court

Thelin v. Taylor

432 P.2d 791, 248 Or. 149, 1967 Ore. LEXIS 389

CourtOregon Supreme Court

DecidedOctober 25, 1967

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 432 P.2d 791 (Thelin v. Taylor) 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

Thelin v. Taylor, 432 P.2d 791, 248 Or. 149, 1967 Ore. LEXIS 389 (Or. 1967).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The trial court foreclosed the labor liens of the plaintiff and the defendants Chapman, and the defendant property owners, the Taylors, appeal. The only issue is whether there is any evidence of the reasonable value of the laborers’ work.

The Taylors entered into a remodeling contract with a construction company. The construction company hired the respondent laborers, who are carpenters, two at the rate of $4.33 per hour and one at the rate of $3.25 per hour. Near the end of the job these three laborers were doing common labor, such as breaking up concrete with a sledge. The construction company did not pay the laborers; therefore, they filed labor liens against the Taylor property. They computed the amount of wages due by multiplying the hourly rate at which the construction company had hired them by the number of hours worked, less the time for which they had been paid.

Under these circumstances “the law fixes the amount for which a lien may be had, as "the reasonable value of the labor or materials, and not the price which the contractor agreed to pay therefor: * * *." *151 Christman v. Salway, 103 Or 666, 676, 205 P 541 (1922). We find there was evidence of the reasonable value of the parties’ services.

The trial Gourt did not believe that the reasonable value was the rate at which the laborers had been hired by the construction company because some of their work was common labor and, therefore, the trial court only awarded about 60 per cent of what the laborers claimed was the reasonable value of their work; nevertheless, there was evidence of reasonable value.

The trial court awarded $200 as an attorneys’ fee for the services of the Chapman’s attorneys. The Chapmans cross-appealed contending this is not a reasonable sum. In view of the amount recovered, $875, and the time spent in trial, we find the trial court’s award was within reason.

The decree is affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

The trial court foreclosed the labor liens of the plaintiff and the defendants Chapman, and the defendant property owners, the Taylors, appeal. The only issue is whether there is any evidence of the reasonable value of the laborers’ work.

The Taylors entered into a remodeling contract with a construction company. The construction company hired the respondent laborers, who are carpenters, two at the rate of $4.33 per hour and one at the rate of $3.25 per hour. Near the end of the job these three laborers were doing common labor, such as breaking up concrete with a sledge. The construction company did not pay the laborers; therefore, they filed labor liens against the Taylor property. They computed the amount of wages due by multiplying the hourly rate at which the construction company had hired them by the number of hours worked, less the time for which they had been paid.

Under these circumstances “the law fixes the amount for which a lien may be had, as "the reasonable value of the labor or materials, and not the price which the contractor agreed to pay therefor: * * *." *151 Christman v. Salway, 103 Or 666, 676, 205 P 541 (1922). We find there was evidence of the reasonable value of the parties’ services.

The trial Gourt did not believe that the reasonable value was the rate at which the laborers had been hired by the construction company because some of their work was common labor and, therefore, the trial court only awarded about 60 per cent of what the laborers claimed was the reasonable value of their work; nevertheless, there was evidence of reasonable value.

The trial court awarded $200 as an attorneys’ fee for the services of the Chapman’s attorneys. The Chapmans cross-appealed contending this is not a reasonable sum. In view of the amount recovered, $875, and the time spent in trial, we find the trial court’s award was within reason.

The decree is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

432 P.2d 791, 248 Or. 149, 1967 Ore. LEXIS 389, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/thelin-v-taylor-or-1967.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack