77 N.W. 340 | N.D. | 1898
This is an action to foreclose a mechanic’s lien upon what is known as the “St. John Block,” in the City of Grand Forks. It is conceded that the interests of all the parties joined as defendants herein, in the property in question, are subordinate to the rights of plaintiff under his lien, if he is entitled to one and any balance still remains due to him thereon. The defendant H. H. St. John, the original debtor, and against whose property the lien was filed, did not appear or answer in the District Court. The same is true of George B. Clifford, E. F. Powers and Fred S. jVlartin. The other four defendants, however, contested plaintiff’s right to recover, and in their separate answers set out at length the nature of the interest which each has in this property. The trial Court found for the plaintiff, and fixed the balance due upon his lien at $7,858.25, with 7 per cent, interest from January 3, 1892', adjudged the same to be first lien, determined the relative interest therein of the contesting defendants, and entered the decree of foreclosure usual in such cases. Both the plaintiff and the four contesting defendants appeal. Plaintiff appeals, contending that the sum allowed to him by the trial court is too small by $2,000. To
The case is here for trial anew, under chapter 5 of the Laws of 1897. The record discloses that the defendant H. H. St. John was the owner of, or at least had the record title to, certain corner lots in the City of Grand Forks, and, in addition, was reputed tp be a man of some financial resources. On February 11, 1891, St. John orally contracted with plaintiff to erect for him, upon his lots, a five-story brick and stone bank and office building, at an agreed price of $42,839. This did not include the finishing of the fourth and fifth stories. At a later time, however, plaintiff contracted to finish these two stories at a fixed compensation for each, and, in addition, furnished certain extras and made certain alterations ; bringing the total cost of the construction of the building, or at least the portion done by plaintiff, to $51,545.25 at its completion. All parties to this litigation agree that this sum was due Turner in the first instance. Actual work was begun March 4, 1891, and the building was completed January 3, 1892. On January 11, 1892, Turner filed a mechanic’s lien for an alleged unpaid balance of $22,680.25. In his complaint in this action he sets out as still due him a balance of $12,184.25, with interest from January 3, 1892. As a defense against the lien, all of the defendants united in alleging that plaintiff has been paid in full, and, with the exception of the Reedy Elevator Manufacturing Company, they strenuously urge that defense upon this appeal. It developed that St. John was not a man of means. He did, however, become an extensive borrower. On June 1, 1891, he executed a first mortgage for $40,000 on this property to the Security Trust Company. This mortgage was sold and assigned to the Guaranty Savings Bank, and the notes secured by it are still unpaid. On the same day, to-wit, June.i, 1891, St. John also executed a deed of the property to George B. Clifford and George F. Shutt, which appears to have been given in trust or for security. Again, on November 27, 1891, St. John executed a second mortgage to the Security Trust Company for $10,000.
We will now consider what in the briefs of counsel is termed the “note transaction.” During the time when the Security Trust Company was making payments upon the contract, and at a time when it was not able to do so, and the demands of Mr. Turner, as well as his subcontractors, for money, were extremely urgent, and their necessities great, Mr. Clifford proposed that they give their notes to the Security Turst Company, and he would negotiate them and get the cash for them. This was done, and their notes were given, aggregating in amount $8,500. All of these notes, or renewals thereof, are outstanding and unpaid. It sgems, also, to be undisputed that, when 'the notes were given, Clifford assured the makers that he would take care of the notes by personally paying them, or by a sale of the stock of the Grand Forks Investment Company, which he then had in contemplation as a means of financing these unpaid balances, which stood as first liens upon property in which both he and his clients had heavy interests. 1 There is evidence tending to show that subsequently stock in that company was issued and was held as collateral to these notes. Defendants contend that this $8,500 so realized should be credited upon the building. To this we cannot agree. These parties gave their individual notes and got the money. Those notes are outstanding and unpaid. Defendants seek to connect the loan transaction with Turner’s contract. It is doubtless true that, if St. John had met his payments, these parties would not have given.their notes to get necessary funds. And it is also probable that Clifford would not have negotiated the loans or made promises to take care of the notes had it not been imperative, in his view, in his own and his client’s interest, to gain time to take care of the unpaid balance due Mr. Turner. It is plain to us that this tranaction,.when devested of the complications incident to a mistaken business venture, amounts merely to an ordinary loan, made by the plaintiff and his subcontractors through the agency of Mr. Clifford, from the Security Trust Company, and upon the promise to pay contained in their notes. There is an item of $552.60 which we deem proper to charge to Turner. This the
. These three defendants, whose appeals we have been considering, in addition to the defense of payment, also attack the validity of the lien itself. It is urged that if the $8,500 note transaction, before referred to, did not in fact amount to a payment upon the amount due Turner, neverthless Clifford’s promise, and the issuanee of the investment company stock, if such was the fáct, constituted such a taking of collateral security as forfeited plaintiff’s lien, under section 5468, Comp. Laws, then in force, which is as follows: “No person is entitled to a mechanic’s lien who takes collateral security on the same contract.” The facts in this case, as we find them, render this principle entirely inapplicable. If in fact we assume that security was given by Clifford of a valid and enforceable nature, and that the stock was issued and put up, it was merely to secure the payment of the notes given by Turner and others to the Security Trust Company, upon which, they had, in our view, borrowed money, and for nothing else. There is an entire absence of evidence even tending to show that Turner ever received or held collateral security of any kind to secure the debt due him from St. John. Appellants also contend that the lien statement filed by plaintiff does not contain “a just and true account of the demand due him, after allowing all credits,” as provided in section 5476 of the Compiled Laws, which were in force when the statement was filed. The account is first assailed as insufficient in substance. We think the account is sufficient. It shows upon its face that all items were furnished between February 11, 1891, and January 3, 1892. On the debit side, St. John is charged with the prices agreed upon for the three separate contracts, properly designating each, as the original contract, the one for the fourth, and the one for the fifth story. The remaining charges are made in 39 separate amounts, preceded by a clear statement of what each is for.
The chief and more serious objections made to the account filed is that it is not true, in not correctly stating the credits, and in claiming an amount largely in excess of the amount actually due. The evidence shows that at the date the lien statement was sworn to, to-wit, January 10, 1892, the following payments had been made, either to the plaintiff or to his subcontractors for his benefit, none of which payments were credited upon the account: $2,000 paid directly to Turner by a check of St. John’s dated May 23, 1891; $2,100 paid to the Minneapolis Wire Works Company by the Security Trust Company by check dated December 10, 1891; $500 paid to C. B. Deming by the Security Trust Company by check dated December 21, 1891, — all three checks being drawn upon the Grand Forks National Bank. The failure to credit the last two payments was so clearly excusable and innocent that we merely refer to the facts: First, they were not made to Turner himself,f but to his creditors, and only a very short time before the lien was sworn to, and it is not clear that such payments had actually come to his knowledge; second, the account attached to the lien, although sworn to on January, 10, 1892, bears date of December 10, 1891, amd only purports to give the state of the account to that date, which was in fact prior to both of these payments. The only question, then, is as to the $2,000, payment made by St. John. This item was not credited in either of the two written accounts presented to the defendants. The evidence shows that plaintiff had no record of it when his account was being compared, by him and the officers of the Security Trust Company, with their books, subsequent to the filing of the lien. It developed then that an entry appeared on their books showing this payment by St. John. Upon the discovery of this entry, Mr. Turner and a representative of the trust company made an investigation to ascertain the correctness of the charge, and, after a search through the canceled checks of St. John in the Grand Forks National Bank, found St. John’s check for the $2,000. Turner promptly corrected the error, and at no time since has the payment been questioned by him. It seems that his brother had obtained the money on the check, and then deposited it in the bank, but failed to give St. John credit for it upon the account. Does the fact that the amount claimed in the lien was excessive, in the amount and under the circumstances above stated, defeat the
We will now consider the appeal of the Reedy Elevator Manufacturing Company. On August 28, 1891, this appellant made a written contract with St. John to erect a passenger elevator in this building, at an agreed price of $2,850. It was built according to contract, and turned over, completed, on December 30, 1891. On March 28, 1892, appellant filed with the clerk of the District Court of Grand Forks county an account claiming a lien for the balance of the contract price, which was then and is still unpaid. Appellant’s claim was entirely denied by the trial court upon objections made by the Guaranty Savings Bank and Security Trust Company, directed to the sufficiency of the account filed, both in substance and in form. The account was filed under section 5476, Comp. Laws, then in force, which reads as follows: “Every person, except as has been provided for subcontractors, who wishes to avail himself of the provisions of this chapter, may file with the clerk of the District Court of the county or judicial subdivision in which the building, erection or other improvement to be charged with the lien is situated, and within ninety days after all the things aforesaid shall have been furnished or the labor done, a just and true account of the demand due him after allowing all credits, and containing a correct description of the property to be charged with said lien, and verified by affidavit; but a failure to file the same within the time aforesaid shall not defeat the lien, except as against purchasers, or incumbrancers in good faith, without notice, whose rights accrued after the ninety days and before any claim for the lien was filed.” The account "is in form an affidavit purporting to have been made for appellant by its vice president. After the venue, it begins with this recital: “William J. Reedy, being duly sworn, says.” At the close appears the signature, “William J. Reedy,” and underneath his name the words, “Subscribed and sworn to before me this 28th day of-, 18 — .” Instead of a jurat, there
The first objection is that the account filed “does not contain any account of any work done or material furnished or credits given, * * * and does not contain an account of the amount claimed to be due the pretended lienholder.” This objection is not tenable. The phraseology of the account may be subject to criticism, but its meaning is clear. It shows upon its face the contract price, and, in detail, a complete description of the elevator constructed, and includes the statement that there is due the sum of $2,690, after allowing all credits.
The second objection is "upon the ground that the pretended lien is not sworn to as required by law, and is not verified as provided and required by law.” If, in fact, the accouxrt filed was xrot "verified by affidavit,” as required by the statute above quoted, it is a nullity, and the omissioxr is incurably fatal to the enforcement of axiy rights which depend upon it. Oral evidence was offered to show that the affidavit was sworn to. This the trial court refused to consider. In accordance with the statute under which the case was tried, however, this evidexice was received, and, together with the rejected account, is ixr the- record before us. Does the failure of the notary public to attach the jurat render the affidavit a nullity? Our construction of the statute, based upon the overwhelming weight of judicial interpretation, while contrary to usage; compels us to give a negative answer. Ixr the absence of a legislative mandate requiring the jurat, or some provision of law making it an essential part of the affidavit or oath, an account in writing, duly sworn to before a proper officer, and filed under the sectioir above quoted, is not fatally defective on accouxrt of the absence of the jurat, and the fact'that it was sworn to may be proved by extrinsic evidence. The statement of account which the lien claimaxrt files must be “verified by affidavit.” In the absence of a statute affixing a different meaning, “an affidavit is simply a written declaration on oath, in writing, sworn to by the declarant, before a person who has authority to administer oaths.” Axrd. Law Diet.; 1 Bouv. Law Diet. 79; Harris v. Lester, 80 Ill. 307; Hitsman v. Garrard, 16 N. J. Law, 124 ;Cox v. Stern, 170 Ill. 442, 48 N. E. Rep. 906; 1 Enc. Pl. & Prac. 309. See also, Comp. Laws, § 5278. “The- jurat or certificate is no part of the oath or affidavit, but simply evidexrce that the oath was made or the affidavit was sworn to.” Bantley v. Finney (Neb.) 62 N. W. Rep. 213; Williams v. Stevenson, 103 Ind. 243, 2 N. E. Rep. 728. It is also held that “it is irot necessary to its completexress that the party making should sign it, uxrless the statute expressly requires such signatures.” Bates v. Robinson, 8 Iowa 318; Hargadine v. Van Horn, 72 Mo. 370; Norton v. Hauge (Minn.) 50 N. W. Rep. 368. Cox v. Stern, supra, involved the sufficiency of an affidavit extending a chattel mortgage lien. Like this case, the affidavit was. sigxied, and acknowledgment attached instead of a jurat. The opinion tex-sely states the doctrine, upheld
Our views find support in the following cases: Hitsman v. Garrard, supra; Ladow v. Groom, 1 Denio, 429; Lawton v. Kiel, 51 Barb. 30; Bergesch v. Keevil, 19 Mo. 127; Finley v. West, 51. Mo. App. 569; Bennet v. Paine, 7 Watts, 334; Borough of Pottsville v. Curry, 32 Pa. St. 443; Angier v. Schieffelin, 72 Pa. St. 106: Jackman v. Gloucester, 143 Mass. 380;, 9 N. E. Rep. 740; Williams v. Stevenson, 103 Ind. 243, 2 N. E. Rep. 728; Grocery Co. v. Draham, 8 Wash. 263, 36 Pac. Rep. 31; Fortenheim v. Chailin, 47 Ark. 49, 14 S. W. Rep. 462; Bloomingdale v. Chittenden, 75 Mich. 305. 42 N. W. Rep. 836; Peterson v. Fowler, 76 Mich 258, 43 N. W. Rep. 10; Kruse v. Wilson, 79 Ill. 233; Harris v. Lester, 80 Ill. 307; Bickerdike v. Allen, 157 Ill. 95, 41 N. E. Rep. 740; Cook v. Jenkins, 30 Iowa, 452; Stout v. Folger, 34 Iowa, 71; Stock Co. v. Weber, 41 Ohio St. 689; Fidelity Insurance, Trust & Safe-Deposit Co. v. Roanoke Iron Co., 81 Fed. Rep. 439; Ainslie v. Kohn, 16 Ore. 363, 19 Pac. Rep. 97; Ice Co. v. Eastman (Wyo.) 38 Pac. Rep. 680. There are authorities in irreconcilable conflict with the foregoing, among which may be cited Hill v. Building Co., (S. D.) 60 N. W. Rep. 752; Coleman v. Goodnew, 36 Minn. 9, 29 N. W. Rep. 338; Finane v. Improvement Co. (N. M.) 5 Pac. 725, followed in Minor v. Marshall (N. M.) 27 Pac. 481. There is also a class of cases holding the absence of the jurat is fatal, which are based upon special statutory requirements relating to the affixing of the signature and seal of the officer. Gates v. Brown (Wash.) 25 Pac. Rep. 914; Mill Co. v. McDonald (Wash.) 32 Pac. Rep. 108. Our conclusions are not at variance with the line of authorities holding that the jurat is essential as preliminary proof that the contents of the affidavit were in fact sworn to, in cases where the affidavit is primarily to be used as evidence, or is to be presented to a public officer whose right or duty to act depends upon such affidavit. Such, in our view, is McGillivray v.
Having reached the conclusion that the absence of the jurat is not fatal, and that evidence 'aliunde is admissible to show that the affidavit was properly sworn to, we have no difficulty in finding that it was so sworn to. Both the notary public and affiant so testify, and without contradiction. The affidavit itself also corroborates the statement of the notary that the acknowledgment was attached by an oversight. This appellant’s account was then verified by affidavit. Its lien is a valid lien, inferior to plaintiff’s, but superior to the interests of all the remaining defendants. Heater Co. v. Gordon, 2 N. D. 246, 50 N. W. Rep. 708.
After the testimony was in, arguments made, and findings presented, the Court, upon plaintiff’s motion, reopened- the case, and permitted further evidence to be introduced, against defendants’ objection. This is urged as error. We do not think the record shows an unwarranted use by the trial court of its discretion in so doing. “It is a familiar rule of District Court practice for the trial court, after the evidence has been taken, in the exercise of judicial discretion, to reopen the case, and receive further evidence, at any time prior to filing its decision.” Second Nat. Bank v. First Nat. Bank, 8 N. D. 50, 76 N. W. Rep. 504.
The judgment and decree of the District Court rendered and entered herein are reversed, vacated, and set aside; and in accordance with our findings herein, and the stipulation contained in the record, showing the amount due on the three subordinate hens, it is ordered and adjudged that the District Court enter judgment of foreclosure and sale herein, establishing plaintiff’s lien as a first lien upon the premises described in the complaint for the -sum of $9,125.65, with interest thereon from January 3, 1892, to the date of the judgment, at 7 per cent, per annum; also for plaintiff’s costs and disbursements herein in both the District and Supreme Courts. The taxation of costs in the District Court already made will stand, and the costs of plaintiff in the Supreme Court are to be taxed in the usual way. The judgment of the District Court will direct that the person making the sale shall, after paying the expenses of said sale, and paying plaintiff the amount of his lien, with interest and costs and disbursements, pay to the defendant the J. W. Reedy Elevator Manufacturing Company the amount of its mechanic’s lien upon said premises, which is hereby established at the 'sum of $2,609.01, with interest thereon from March 28, 1892, at 7 per cent, per annum, and also its costs herein in both District and Supreme Courts, to be taxed in the usual way. Out of any surplus in his hands, the person making the sale will pay the Guaranty Savings Bank of Manchester, N. H., the amount of its lien on said premises, fixed by the record, and hereby established as a third lien theieon, and inferior to the two mechanics’ liens just referred to, at the sum of $54,227.16, with 7 per cent, interest thereon since October 5, 1898; and out of any surplus in his hands, after