G. W. KING, W. O. HOBBS AND SWAN & HOLTSINGER COMPANY, A CORPORATION, APPELLANTS,
v.
T. W. RAMSEY APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Material supplier Ramsey sought to enforce a mechanic's lien against property owners and contractor sureties for unpaid materials supplied to a construction project. The Florida Supreme Court held that a material supplier has a lien for the full unpaid contract price regardless of when payment becomes due, but reversed the personal judgment against the sureties who were not property owners.
A material supplier's lien extends to the full amount unpaid on the contract from the time notice of lien is served, regardless of when payment becomes actually due. However, a personal decree against contractor sureties who are not property owners is not authorized by statute.
“a lien shall exist from the time of the service of the notice for the amount unpaid on the contract”
Establishes that the statutory basis for the mechanic's lien extends to the full unpaid contract amount from the time notice is served
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSwan & Holtsinger Co., a property owner, contracted with contractor J. M. Knight for building construction. King and Hobbs were sureties on Knight's c…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Notice Of Lien cases and more on FLexlaw
Whitfield, J.
The Swan & Holtsinger Co., one of the owners of the land, entered into a contract with J.
M. Knight for the construction of a building on a designated lot. King and Hobbs became the sureties on the contractor’s bond.
T. W. Ramsey furnished materials which Knight put into the building, and did not pay for. The contractor, Knight, did not finish the building, and nearly one thousand dollars of the contract price had not been paid. Knight was adjudged bankrupt. The building was completed by the sureties on the contractor’s bond at a cost exceeding one thousand dollars. Ramsey served notice of lien for $277.19 when more than that amount of the contract price had not been paid. The lot was sold to E.
D. Garcia who it is alleged had notice of the lien. Decrees pro confesso were entered against O’Donohue, one of the owners, and Garcia, the purchaser, and they do not appeal. The Rwan & Holtsinger Co., and King and Hobbs defended against Ramsev’s bill to enforce his lien for materials fur nislied to the contractor and put in the building. The court decreed a lien on the lot for the value of the materials, and also entered a personal decree therefor against G.
W. King and W.
O. Hobbs and the Swan & Holtsinger Co., all of whom appeal.
It is contended that under the statute a material-man cannot have a lien except to the extent that there is money actually due the contractor at the time the material man serves his notice of lien, or to the extent that money therefor becomes actually due to the contractor. The language of the statute is that “a lien shall exist from the time of the service of the notice for the amount unpaid on the contract.” Under this statute the lien extended to the amount unpaid on the contract completed by the contractor’s sureties whether it was then-actually due and payable, or afterwards actually became due and payable to the contractor or his sureties. The notice served was a sufficient compliance with the statute to authorize a lien upon the lot.
As King and Hobbs, the sureties on the contractor’s bond, were not the owners of the lot,' a personal decree against them is not authorized by the statute, and the decree as to them is reversed. In other respects the decree is affirmed at the cost of the appellant corporation.
Shackleford, C. J., and Taylor, Cockrell and Hocker, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Royal Indem. Co. v. Knott, 136 So. 474 (Fla. 1931)…izance to which the recovery upon the bond would be incidental. Fidelity Casualty Co. v. Morrison Construction Co., supra; First Nat. Bk. v. Perkins, 81 Fla. 341, 87 So. 912; Union Indemnity v. Worthingstun, 98 Fla. 242, 123 So. 759; King v. Ramsey, 66 Fla. 257, 63 So. 439; Phillips v. Gilbert, supra; 9 C. J. 83. It is contended by appellees that the equity court having acquired jurisdiction for purposes of accounting has therefore also acquired jurisdiction to enter judgment against the surety upon the i…
-
Dekle v. Valrico Sandstone Co., 74 Fla. 346 (Fla. 1917)
-
N. Bay Shore Land Co. v. Perry, 86 Fla. 322 (Fla. 1923)…he surety or sureties on the bond would be enforced is not presented. That a decree in personam against the defendant in such a case is proper seems to be settled by the authorities. 18 R. C. L. title “Mechanics’ Lien,” §106, p. 964; King v. Ramsey, 66 Fla. 257, 63 South. Rep. 439; Scott v. Goldinghorst, 123 Ind. 268; Phillips v. Gilbert, 101 U. S. 721. 3. Discussion of the question of the sufficiency of the evidence to support the decree would be of no value. That certain materials were furnished and cer…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence