Crane v. . Genin

Simonson furnished materials to Barton, a sub-contractor. At the time when he filed his notice of lien Barton had been paid in full, and had made default, and had abandoned his contract, and Barry, the main contractor, had been paid in full for all that he had then done, and was also in default. By reason of these facts Simonson had no claim at that time against Genin, the owner.

It has been held in this court, where the owner had, after the completion of the building, paid the contractor in full before the filing of a lien, though the lien was filed within the time provided by the statute,…