29 Ohio St. 227 | Ohio | 1876
The question in this case arises under the mechanics’ lien law, as amended ou the 30th of March, 1875 (72 Ohio L. 166). The plaintiff in error, who was a creditor of the sub-contractor for materials furnished, sought to recover his claim from the owner of the building, under favor of section 2 of said amendatory act, which provides that “ any person who shall furnish materials for the construction ' of any such building, . . . whose demands for . . . materials so furnished have not been paid and satisfied, may deliver to or file with such owner . . . an attested account of'the amount and value of . . . materials furnished and remaining unpaid; and thereupon such owner . . . shall retain out of his . . . subsequent payments to the contractor the amount of such . . . material for the benefit of the person so . . . furnishing the same.”
The terms of the section, “ any person who shall furnish materials,” are comprehensive enough to include the creditor of any sub-contractor, as well as the creditor of “ the contractor;” but upon examination of the whole statute, as amended, it is quite clear that the legislature did not intend to provide a remedy for material men who credit any person other than the owner or the original contractor.
Motion overruled.
