Legal Opinion

Coast Engine & MacHine Works v. Barbee

Oregon Supreme Court

Decided March 26, 1929PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtCoshow, C. J.

Defendant Barbee not having appealed is conclusively presumed to be satisfied with the judgment and decree. He will not be affected by this opinion.

The statute requires:

“A description of the chattel, sufficient for identification.” Or. L., § 10273.

The lien, being one to protect the laborer who has expended labor and furnished material for the benefit of the owner of. the chattel should be liberally construed. The lien is statutory and the lien claimant must substantially follow the statute in order to get the benefit of the lien. An exact or faultless description will not be required but the…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Guille v. Wong FookOregon Supreme Court · 1886
  2. Duby v. HicksOregon Supreme Court · 1922
  3. Hiner v. PittsOregon Supreme Court · 1918
  4. Ross v. SpaniolOregon Supreme Court · 1926
  5. Covey Motor Car Co. v. KliksOregon Supreme Court · 1924

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Yellow Manufacturing Acceptance Corp. v. BristolOregon Supreme Court · 1951
  2. Sutherland v. WickeyOregon Supreme Court · 1929
  3. George H. Buckler Co. v. American Metallic Chemical Corp.Oregon Supreme Court · 1958
  4. McGregor Co. v. HeritageCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1980
  5. Gulick v. NelsonOregon Supreme Court · 1945

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API