71 Iowa 359 | Iowa | 1887
The plaintiff took all the steps required by statute to acquire a lien for every item of lumber from the time it was furnished. This being so, the plaintiff has a prima facie right to such lien. If the right did not arise under the statute thus fully complied with, it must be by reason of a fact which excused the owner in making the payments, and the burden of proving such fact rested upon the owner. He contends that he was excusable in paying Woodside, because lie was ignorant of any claim on the part of the plaintiff for the lumber furnished by it to Woodside. But it was not necessary for him to know that the plaintiff had a claim. If we should hold that it was, we should go far towards frittering away the whole mechanic’s lien law, so far as subcontractors are concerned. On this matter of knowledge there was some conflict in the evidence, as might be expected. According to the testimony of Woodside, Rogg knew that the plaintiff was furnishing the lumber, and was not being paid in advance, nor as each item was furnished, but that it was to be paid out of the money coming due to Woodside on the building. According to the "testimony of Rogg, he simply knew that
In the case of Othmer Bros. v. Clifton & United Presbyterian Church, 69 Iowa, 656, the church was charged with a lieu in favor of subcontractors, notwithstanding the church had paid the contractor. The fact was that one or more officers of the church had knowledge that Othmer Bros, did painting on the church as subcontractors, but did not know that they wmre not paid in advance, nor as the work went on. This court thought that the church was bound to take notice that the painters might be acquiring a claim against the contractor for which the statute gives a lien.
Where the owner knows that subcontractors are furnishing labor or materials, and knows-who they are, he should not be excused in paying the contractor in disregard of their claims. He would, we think, be put upon inquiry. Nothing could be easier than the ascertainment of their claims. Nor is it any hardship upon him to require that he shall withhold payment during the time which the law allows the subcontractor to perfect his lien. The hardship, if any, arises after he has once needlessly proceeded in disregard of rights which the statute was designed to give. And, as the evidence shows that more money became due from the owner to the contractor after the plaintiff commenced furnishing lumber than was necessary to pay it and others having prior liens, it
Modified and Affirmed.