Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Intermountain Building & Loan Association v. Albert Steinfeld & Co.

Supreme Court of Arizona

October 3, 1932

INTERMOUNTAIN BUILDING & LOAN ASSOCIATION, a Corporation, Appellant,
v.
ALBERT STEINFELD & CO., a Corporation, Appellee

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of the County of Pima. Fred W. Fickett, Judge. Judgment reversed as to defendant Intermountain Building & Loan Association; otherwise affirmed.

Mr. O. T. Richey, for Appellant.

Mr. Charles Blenman, for Appellee.

OPINION

[40 Ariz. 546] ROSS, J.

Albert Steinfeld & Co. brought this action against Frank Jordan, contractor, to recover $1,096.04 and to foreclose a mechanic's lien therefor on the premises of John S. Crugar and Harriet A. Crugar, his wife, whereon had been installed a pump or pumping plant furnished said Jordan by plaintiff.

The Intermountain Building & Loan Association was made a party for the purpose of determining whether a mortgage it had on the premises was inferior to plaintiff's mechanic's lien.

The judgment gave priority to plaintiff's lien, and the defendant Intermountain Building & Loan Association has appealed and urges several reasons why the judgment is erroneous. One of such reasons is that the plaintiff failed to file its notice and claim of lien within sixty days after the completion of the installation of the pumping plant. In order to fix and secure a lien, every original contractor, within ninety days, and every other person within sixty days, after the completion of a building, structure or improvement, must make duplicate copies of a notice and claim of lien and file one copy thereof with the county recorder and within a reasonable time serve the other copy on the owner, if to be found within the county. Section 2021, Rev. Code of Arizona 1928. Steinfeld & Co. was not an original contractor and, therefore, under the statute was required to perfect its lien, in the manner stated, within sixty days after the completion of the installation [40 Ariz. 547] of the pumping plant. The notice of lien was filed with the county recorder and served on the owners October 20, 1930. The only evidence as to when the improvement was completed consists of the testimony of the contractor, Frank Jordan, and is as follows:

"Q. Did you install it? A. Yes sir.

"Q. About when? A. About July -- some time in August, 1930. July 31st was the date I think I finished with the contract, either July 30th or August 1st, somewhere about that. I think it was July 31st. . . .

"Q. July 31st? A. Yes sir. . . .

Page 743

Q. On the 4th of August? A. Yes, the work was finished on the 4th of August. . . .

"Q. You finished the contract on or about the 31st of July? A. No. it ran into August, part of it did because we were held up on account of the well being badly sanded up.

"The Court: Well, early in August? A. Yes, it started some time in the middle of July. I think the first material I ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.