SOUTHERN PAINT MFG. CO., INC.,
v.
MYRTLE O. CRUMP
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.
Southern Paint Manufacturing Co. sought to enforce a materialman's lien against a property owner who had paid the contractor in full without receiving a sworn statement of payment from the contractor. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed dismissal of the complaint, holding that materialmen's liens are strictly statutory and the plaintiff failed to allege compliance with all statutory prerequisites.
The court held that Southern Paint's bill of complaint was properly dismissed because it failed to allege compliance with all statutory prerequisites to a materialman's lien. A materialman's lien is strictly statutory and requires strict compliance with every statutory requirement before it can be enforced.
“A material-man's lien is strictly statutory and before any person may have such lien the statutory provisions must be strictly complied with and before he can enforce such lien the claimant must allege and prove a strict compliance with every requirement of the statute.”
Establishes the fundamental principle that materialmen's liens require strict statutory compliance
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe property owner contracted with De La Vergne for improvements. Southern Paint supplied materials to De La Vergne, with the last delivery on Novembe…
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 Materialman'S Lien cases and more on FLexlaw
The appeal is from an order dismissing bill of complaint which sought to enforce an alleged lien of a materialman against the property of an owner who had paid the contractor after completion of the work the full contract price of and for the work and materials done, performed and furnished.
■ The question presented by the appellant is:
“The defendant entered into a contract with one De La Vergne for the purpose of having improvements made on the property involved in this suit. For the purpose of making said improvements, the said De La Vergne obtained from the plaintiff various and sundry materials, the last furnishing of which was on the 6th day of November, 1936. The defendant did not know who supplied the materials used in said improvements, and had no knowledge that same were being supplied by the plaintiff. The final payment was made to the contractor on the 10th day of December, 1936, without a demand by the defendant that the said contractor present her with an affidavit or statement under oath in the manner provided for in sub-section 3 of Section 5396 (5), Compiled General Laws, nor was such affidavit furnished at any time by the said contractor. On January 25th, 1937, the plaintiff caused to be filed notice of lien, and a copy of same was served on the defendant by registered mail. Under the above statement of facts, was the mgney paid by the defendant to the con*801tractor, within three months of the last furnishing of supplies, properly paid upon her failure to demand and receive a statement under oath showing that all materials and labor had been paid for in full or showing those remaining unpaid ?”
Or, as he says, stated otherwise, is: “Does payment to a general contractor made within three months of the last furnishing if supplied by a materialman constitute proper payment so as to discharge the lien of the materialman where no statement under oath was given by or demanded of the contractor prior to said payment?”
There is no allegation in the bill of complaint that the complainant had complied with the conditions' precedent to acquire a lien on the defendant’s property. A material-man’s lien is strictly statutory and before any person may have such lien the statutory provisions must be strictly complied with and before he can enforce such lien the claimant must allege and prove a strict compliance with every requirement of the statute. See Curtis-Bright Ranch Co. v. Selden Cypress Door Co., 91 Fla. 322, 107 So. 684.
It follows that there was no error in the order dismissing the bill of complaint. Same should be, and is, affirmed.
So ordered.
Whitfield, Terrell, Brown, Buford and Chapman, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Foley Lumber Co. v. Koester, 61 So. 2d 634 (Fla. 1952)…materialman's lien, being strictly statutory, requires that before a lien claimant can enforce his lien, he must allege and prove a strict compliance with every requirement of the statute. Southern Paint Manufacturing Company v. Crump, 132 Fla. 799, 182 So. 291. We have also recognized that one of the cardinal purposes of the Mechanics' Lien Law was to protect the laborer in the collection of his wages. See Florida Fruit Co. v. Shakelford, 145 Fla. 216, 198 So. 841. A careful examination of the Mechanics'…
-
The Masterbilt Corp. v. S. A. Ryan Motors, Inc., 6 So. 2d 818 (Fla. 1942)
-
Shaw et ux. v. Del-Mar Cabinet Co., Inc., 63 So. 2d 264 (Fla. 1953)…rs and materialman, as well as the owner, and that the owner may not waive it without subjecting the final payment to being “improperly made” under the statute. The appellants strongly insist that the case of Southern Paint Mfg. Co., Inc. v. Crump, 132 Fla. 799, 182 So. 291, 292, is identical to this case and that to uphold the Chancellor below would in effect be an abrogation of the doctrine of stare decisis and “leave the state of the law in a great state of upheaval rendering decisions from the Supreme…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Cary & Co. v. Hyer, 91 Fla. 322 (Fla. 1926)