Cashway Lumber Company v. Langston

6 Citing cases

  1. Terry Matthews, Inc. v. C L Contracting Inc.

    959 F. Supp. 1434 (W.D. Okla. 1997)

    But a lien claimant has a right to and must establish its substantive right to recover for the debt underlying the lien statement. Cf. Cashway Lumber Co. v. Langston, 479 P.2d 582, 585 (Okla. 1970) (subcontractor proved proper perfection of its lien and substantive right to recover for the debt underlying the lien statement, thereby establishing the validity of its lien and its right to foreclose the lien, subject to a later proportional reduction in the amount of its judgment to the extent the total amount of all subcontractors' valid liens, and thereby the property owner's lien obligations to the subcontractors, exceed the contract price of the general contract); Knapp v. Arko Interstate Electric Co., 448 P.2d 996, 1005-06 (Okla. 1968) (subcontractor may obtain and enforce lien for amount due on subcontract plus amount which represents an amount charged to the contractor for work and materials not included in the subcontract). The Court is not persuaded by Defendant Amwest's unsupported assertion that TMI cannot recover against the bond amounts due pursuant to contracts but is limited to recovery of the reasonable value of goods and services rendered.

  2. Roofing Sheet Metal Supply v. Khalil

    1996 OK 101 (Okla. 1996)   Cited 4 times

    According to Section 143, if the owner pays the contractor within 90 days, the owner suffers the risk of loss, i.e. the risk that the contractor will not pay the materialman. See Cashway Lumber Co. v. Langston, 479 P.2d 582 (Okla. 1970). The owner may protect himself by withholding payment for 90 days, or by making a joint payee check to the contractor and the materialman.

  3. Accident Care & Treatment Ctr., Inc. v. Csaa Gen. Ins. Co.

    2021 OK Civ. App. 3 (Okla. Civ. App. 2021)   Cited 3 times

    (action to recover judgment on a contract for labor performed and materials supplied)). More recently, in Cashway Lumber Co. v. Langston, 1970 OK 206, 479 P.2d 582, in which several subcontractors sought to foreclose their liens and recover amounts due for materials and services against the contractor and owner of the property, the Oklahoma Supreme Court reversed the trial court's award of damages to three of the four subcontractors because they failed to prove the amount claimed in the lien. The Court explained:

  4. Accident Care & Treatment Ctr., Inc. v. CSAA Gen. Ins. Co.

    483 P.3d 1 (Okla. Civ. App. 2020)   Cited 3 times

    (action to recover judgment on a contract for labor performed and materials supplied)). More recently, in Cashway Lumber Co. v. Langston , 1970 OK 206, 479 P.2d 582, in which several subcontractors sought to foreclose their liens and recover amounts due for materials and services against the contractor and owner of the property, the Oklahoma Supreme Court reversed the trial court's award of damages to three of the four subcontractors because they failed to prove the amount claimed in the lien. The Court explained:

  5. Bailey v. Call

    767 P.2d 138 (Utah Ct. App. 1989)   Cited 8 times

    The findings prepared by Bailey's counsel mistakenly recite a figure of $1,800. Indeed, a number of reported cases have held that the amount of a subcontractor's or supplier's lien is limited by the amount owed on the contract between the owner and contractor. See, e.g., Westinghouse Elec. Supply Co., Inc. v. Electromech, Inc., 119 N.H. 833, 409 A.2d 1141, 1143 (1979); Cashway Lumber Co. v. Langston, 479 P.2d 582, 586 (Okla. 1970). "This limitation is demanded as a matter of simple justice and expediency.

  6. Chromacolour Labs v. Snider Bros

    503 A.2d 1365 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 1986)   Cited 11 times
    Noting that garnishment is a statutory proceeding

    The issue for us is whether the facts underlying the default judgment are conclusive as to another party — Chromacolour. This precise question does not appear to have been decided in Maryland, but our search of the authorities in other jurisdictions indicates a negative answer. See Dade County v. Lambert, 334 So.2d 844 (Fla.App. 1976); Fawkes v. National Refining Co., 341 Mo. 630, 108 S.W.2d 7 (1937) reh. den., 235 Mo. App. 433, 130 S.W.2d 684 (1939); Cashway Lumber Co. v. Langston, 479 P.2d 582 (Okla. 1971); Klimmer v. Klimmer, 66 Mich. App. 310, 238 N.W.2d 586 (1976); Peek v. Southern Guar. Ins. Co., 240 Ga. 498, 241 S.E.2d 210 (1978); C.f. City Finance Co. v. Baldwin, 326 Mich. 174, 40 N.W.2d 107, 109 (1949) (admissions of fraud in defendant's answer not binding on co-defendant). The failure of Maryland Photo and Warren McCall in his dual capacity to plead, resulting in a default against them, cannot deprive Chromacolour of its right to present its defenses to the complaint.