188 N.E.2d 434 | Ohio Ct. App. | 1960
This cause comes on for hearing and determination upon the return to the alternative writ of mandamus directing the respondents to show cause why they should not be ordered to pay to relator the sum of $1,711.78. The matter is to be determined upon the pleadings and stipulation of facts.
Relator's original action in this court is predicated upon a sworn statement for a lien on funds payable to contractors for public work. From the stipulation it appears that the respondent Frank Messer Sons, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as Messer), on May 28, 1957, entered into a contract with the state of Ohio for the construction, as general contractor, of an addition to the north wing of the Ohio State University Hospital; that under date of September 4, 1957, Messer entered into a subcontract with The J. T. Edwards Company, under which the latter undertook to fabricate and erect structural steel for said hospital addition; that Edwards in turn entered into a subcontract with Gunther Steel Erecting Company, pursuant to which the latter agreed to erect said structural steel in said hospital addition; Gunther in turn from time to time rented from relator certain equipment for use by Gunther in such erection work, and as of September 2, 1958, the amount owed by Gunther to relator for rental of equipment was $1,711.78; that Gunther ceased work under its subcontract with Edwards on or about September 4, 1958.
It is stipulated further that on or about September 8, 1958, Edwards undertook the completion of the Gunther subcontract, and in that connection rented from relator certain equipment *414 from September 8, 1958, to October 2, 1958, and paid to relator as rental therefor the sum of $189.78.
Although conceding the facts, Messer objects to consideration of this portion of the stipulation on the ground that the facts stated therein are incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial.
From the itemized statement of the amount and value of the equipment and machinery furnished to Gunther, set forth in the sworn statement for lien, it appears that such equipment and machinery were furnished Gunther for the period commencing January 25, 1958, and ending September 2, 1958. No other allegation appears in the sworn statement with respect to the date on which the last of the equipment and machinery was furnished. It therefore appears from the sworn statement that the last of machinery and equipment furnished to Gunther was on September 2, 1958.
The sworn statement for lien, as aforesaid, was filed with the respondent Director of Public Works on January 12, 1959, and a copy thereof served on respondent Messer on January 10, 1959, more than four months after September 2, 1958. Messer in turn filed no notice of his intention to dispute relator's claim set forth in the sworn statement.
Section
The question arises as to whether the allegations in the sworn statement may be supplemented by proof that Edwards undertook to complete the Gunther subcontract and in that connection rented equipment from relator during the period from September 8 to October 2, 1958, thus affording a premise for relator's contention that as a matter of fact the last of the machinery was furnished on October 2, 1958, and that the sworn statement was filed in time.
The provisions of the Mechanics' Lien Act are to be construed *415
liberally to secure the beneficial results, intents and purposes thereof, and a substantial compliance therewith is sufficient for the validity of such lien. Section
For example, failure of the affidavit to state "the amount due over and above all legal setoffs" as required by Section 8314, General Code (Section
In general, unless authorized by statute, a mechanic's lien claim or statement may not be amended after the expiration of the time for filing (57 Corpus Juris Secundum, 716; 81 A. L. R., 360), or reformed in equity. 36 American Jurisprudence, 104; 36 Ohio Jurisprudence (2d), 529. In Ohio no provision is made by statute authorizing an amendment either before or after the time prescribed within which the claim must be filed.
The precise question presented here was involved inMacklin, Recr., v. Miller Improved Gas Engine Co., 13 C. C. (N.S.), 94, 22 C. D., 16, wherein the Franklin County Circuit Court held as follows:
"The legality of a mechanic's lien should affirmatively appear on the face of the statement filed with the recorder; and where the lien is rendered invalid by failure to state that the work was completed within four months of the filing of the affidavit, the party holding the claim will not be permitted to supply the deficiency by parol, and must submit to the loss of his lien."
This decision was affirmed without opinion by the Supreme Court in
The objection of the respondent to the admission of that portion of the stipulation relating to equipment rented to Edwards is sustained, the writ denied and the petition dismissed at relator's costs.
Writ denied.
SMITH and DEEDS, JJ., concur.
FESS, P. J., SMITH and DEEDS, JJ., of the Sixth Appellate District, sitting by designation in the Tenth Appellate District. *417