Holland v. Robbins

5 Citing cases

  1. Palmer v. Crouch

    1956 OK 197 (Okla. 1956)   Cited 5 times

    But one or the other of these alternatives must be followed to perfect the statutory lien; and, there is no lien under this factual situation except that provided by the statute. Holland v. Robbins, 92 Okla. 225, 219 P. 387; Kleindorfer v. Dascomb-Daniels Lbr. Co., 102 Okla. 60, 226 P. 354. The filing of this action eight months after the date upon which the last material was furnished was insufficient to create a lien upon the defendant's homestead that might be foreclosed without regard to the bankruptcy action.

  2. Dascomb-Daniels Lumber Co. v. Whitley

    15 P.2d 31 (Okla. 1932)   Cited 1 times

    The position of the plaintiff in error is that the sale should be confirmed, notwithstanding the irregularities connected therewith, and notwithstanding the fact of its having been the homestead of the judgment debtor and the mortgage liens. Citation is made of Japp v. Sapulpa State Bank, 90 Okla. 56, 215 P. 1059; South Texas Lumber Co. v. Epps, 48 Okla. 372, 150 P. 164; Holland v. Robbins, 92 Okla. 225, 219 P. 387; Bryan v. Orient Lumber Coal Co., 55 Okla. 370, 156 P. 897; and Kleindorfer v. Dascomb-Daniels Lumber Co., 102 Okla. 60, 226 P. 354; also section 690, C. O. S. 1921; 15 R. C. L. 799; Nickerson v. Crawford (Minn.) 73 Am. St. Rep. 354, Gregory Co. v. Cale (Minn.

  3. Sutherland Lbr. Co. v. Gale

    277 P. 242 (Okla. 1929)   Cited 10 times

    It is contended, however, by the plaintiff in error, Sutherland Lumber Company, that, under the provisions of section 2, article 12 of the Constitution, it is not necessary to file a lien or to proceed under the provisions of statute relating to materialmen's lien in order to recover for materials furnished and used in improvements upon the homestead, and in support of such contention certain decisions from other jurisdictions are cited wherein it was held that the exemptions from sale and seizure of the homestead did not apply to materials and for work and labor in improving the homestead. The following cases from this jurisdiction are referred to as supporting the contention: Ralls v. Taylor Lumber Co., 69 Okla. 170, 171 P. 24; Atlas Supply Co. v. Blake, 51 Okla. 778, 152 P. 601; Holland v. Robbins, 92 Okla. 225, 219 P. 387; Kleindorfer v. Dascomb-Daniels Lbr. Co., 102 Okla. 60, 226 P. 354. We find no authority in such cases, under the facts shown therein, to sustain a lien or permit enforcement thereof for materials furnished and used in improving a homestead except under the usual statutory method relating to materialmen, or by personal judgment against the home owner and the usual execution and levy thereunder.

  4. Continental Supply Co. v. Geo. H. Greenan Co.

    282 P. 598 (Okla. 1928)   Cited 5 times
    In Continental Supply Co. v. George H. Greenan Co., 140 Okla. 221, 282 P. 598, the question arose as to the right to a lien on a pipe line.

    Mechanics' liens are creatures of the statutes, and a compliance with the statutory requirements is necessary in order to acquire a valid lien. Liens can only be created by agreement or by some fixed rule of law. It is not the function of courts to create them. Section 7407, C. O. S. 1921; Basham v. Goodholm Sparrow Inv. Co., 52 Okla. 536, 152 P. 416: Holland v. Robbins. 92 Okla. 225, 219 P. 387; McEwen Mfg. Co. v. Anadarko Producer's Oil Co., supra. It is contended by the defendant that section 7461 is practically the same statute that existed in Kansas, and that about the time we adoped this statute from Kansas, they held that a lien on an oil and gas lease could not be maintained under this section.

  5. Anthony v. Dukes

    267 P. 462 (Okla. 1928)   Cited 4 times

    "While the law providing for a materialman's lien should be liberally construed to effectuate the object of the law, it is a condition precedent to the establishment of such lien that the proper lien statement be filed with the clerk of the proper district court, within the time provided by section 3863, Rev. Laws 1910, if the party seeking the lien be an original contractor, and within the time provided by section 3864, Rev. Laws 1910, if the party seeking the lien be a subcontractor; and such subcontractor must also give notice of the filing of such lien statement to the owner." And in the case of Holland v. Robbins, Sheriff, 92 Okla. 225, 219 P. 387, the foregoing case was expressly approved with this language: "It is not a matter of voluntary contract between the parties, and the plain provisions of the statute point out the manner that this right may be obtained by the party desiring to assert it, and there is no provision of the statute that gives a party the right to the lien without he first comply with the requirements of the statute, and there is no provision of the statute that says that the establishment of the lien is only for the purpose of protecting the lienholder against third parties.