Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Bailey v. Call

Court of Appeals of Utah

Decided January 12, 1989No. 870203-CAPublished

1ConcurrenceOrme, Judge

I agree with what is said in the main opinion about the applicability of the mechanics’ lien statute and Bailey’s right to foreclose his lien. I am troubled by the *142result, however, in that the adjudged amount of Bailey’s lien, $3,327.90, greatly exceeds the amount Call agreed to pay Gurule for the materials.1 As Call had a deal to procure those materials for much less, it strikes me as unfair to impose this full amount on Call. Call had no knowledge of Bailey and no control over him. Indeed, Call’s contract with Gurule specifically required Gurule to supply the materials himself, on favorable…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Boulia-Gorrell Lumber Co. v. East Coast Realty Co.Supreme Court of New Hampshire · 1929
  2. CASHWAY LUMBER COMPANY v. LangstonSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1970
  3. Sierra Nevada Lumber Co. v. WhitmoreUtah Supreme Court · 1901
  4. Westinghouse Electric Supply Co. v. Electromech, Inc.Supreme Court of New Hampshire · 1979

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

Powered by the Exa API