
    PREUIT, Adm’x, v. LAIL.
    No. 15164
    Opinion Filed June 23, 1925.
    Rehearing Denied Feb. 23, 1926.
    1. Mechanics’ Lien® — ‘F^ihclcisur.s — Lien Statement not Proof of Contract with Owner.
    In a suit to foreclose a lien for material furnished and labor performed under a contact with the owner, where the alleged c ntract is put in issue by the answer, the verified lien statement is not prima facie proof of the contract.
    2. Same — Statement as Proof cf Time Material Was Furnished.
    AVhere the verified itemized statement of material furnished and labor performed does u t show the date upon which any of mater'al was furnished or labor performed, it does not furnish prima facie proof that it was furnished within four months of the ii.ing of the lien statement.
    3. Sanio — Force of Statement as Evidence.
    A lien statement filed does not establish the lien, but only establishes the fact that a lien is claimed.
    (Syllabus by Ray, C.)
    Commissioners’ Opinion, Division No. 1.
    Error from District 'Court, Garvin Coun:y; A. C. Barrett, Judge.
    Action by Lumber Lail againsf; Evtelyn Preuit, administratrix of the estate of Frank N. Preuit, deceased. Judgment for 'plaintiff, and defendant appeals.
    Reversed.
    A. F. Pyeatt, for plaintiff in error.
    C. H. Thompson and Bowling & Farmer, for defendant in error.
   Opinion by

RAY, O.

This suit was commenced by Luther Lail to foreclose a lien for labor performed and material furnished i n certain property of Frank N. Preuit, deceased, alleged to have been furnished under oval contract with the deceased. The defendant’s unverified answer included a general denial and a specific denial that the labor and material were furnished under a contract with the owner, and denied that the deceased ever undertook and agreed to pay for the labor and material. The only evidence offered 'by plaintiff was the lien statement which was filed in the office of "he court clerk on the 16th day of May, 1921. The demurrer to plaintiff’s evidence was overruled, as was Idefendant’s motion for a directed verdict.

The Question to be determined is, Was the lien statement sufficient evidence to make a prim i facie case? The lien statement con-tamed the recital that the claim was made for and on account of work and materials furnished between the dates of June 15, 3920, and March IT, 1921, according to an item! zed statement thereto attached and madi a part of the statement, and that such wort labor, and materials were furnished upon the building and .premises owned by Frank N. Preuit (described), and that the sum claimed was just, due, and unpaid. The den statement was verified by the affi-davii of the lien claimant.

Th! itemized statement attached to and made a part of the lien statement was as follows:

Amended Statement
40(4 eu. ft. of concrete footing_$ 36.20
Brick f irnished on fire wall of brick building located on the north 50 ft. the south 50 ft. of lot 2, block 82_,_ 283.00
Extra 4 inches < n fire wall_ 147.00'
Anchors in joist holes_ 28.00
Concrete footing under pilaster_ ' 9.00
Pilaster labor and material_ 28 80
Two downspouts_,_ 32.70
Plastering _ 72.00
Taking up concrete floor_ 110.63
Taking up and replacing floor_ 50.40
Removing old roof and placing new one on the N. 59 ft. of lot 1, block S2 _ 190.00
Plumbing for fountain in drug store building located in building on N. 50 ft. of lot 1, block 82_ 149.45
$1137.18
Credits

It is contended on the part of the plaintiff that the lien statement was admissible in evidence and of the same probative value as a verified account, and, not being denied under oath, was sufficient to make a prima facie case, while defendant contends that it did not furnish proof of the contract with the owner, or that the material and labor were furnished within four months next preceding the filing of the lien statement in the office of the court clerk, and, for these reasons, did not make a prima facie ca.se.

That the lien statement was admissible in evidence for the purpose of showing that the contractor had taken the necessary steps to preserve the lien claimed is not questioned by the plaintiff in error, but it is contended that the lien statement, being the ex parte affidavit of plaintiff, did not furnish proof of a contract with the owner. Assuming, as contended for the contractor, but not deciding, that the verification of the lein statement was suifieient under section 287, Comp. Stat. 1921, to establish the correctness of the itemized statement attached to the lien statement and to entitle plaintiff to a personal judgment, was it, with all reasonable inference to be drawn therefrom, sufficient to entitle plaintiff to a foreclosure of the lien claimed? No personal judgment was sought.

Note. — See under (1) 27 Cyc. p. 419. (2) 27 Cyc. p. 419. (3) 27 Cyc. p. 419.

Two things are essential to the preset ration of the lien under the statute: (1) A contract with the owner to be charged with the lien (Lee v. Tonsor, 62 Okla. 14, 161 Pac. 804; Gentry-Bowers Lumber Co. v. Hamill, 75 Okla. 210, 182 Pac. 687; Mobley v. Leeper Bros. Lbr. Co., 89 Okla. 95, 214 Pac. 174) ; and (.2) the lien statement shall be filed in the court clerk’s office within :our months after the date upon which material was last furnished or labor last performed. Section 7462, Comp. Stat. 1921.

It is 'not contended by counsel for the contractor, as we understand it, that the contract, or its terms and conditions, may be proved by the recital in the ex parte affidavit. The contention is that section 7462 provides for the filing of the lien statement in the office of the clerk, and prescribes wFat its contents shall be, and that section 688, Comp. St. 1921, makes it a public document and renders it admissible in evidence and competent to prove all relevant facts incorporated in it.

There are two sufficient answers to this contention: "First, section 63S, cited and relied on, only purports to make certified copies of papers authorized or required by law to be filed or recorded in any public office to be received in evidence with the same effect as the original when such original is not in the possession or under the control of parties desiring to use the same. In the instant case the original lien statement was offered and admitted in evidence. The second answer is that section 7462 does not require that the lien statement filed in the office of the court clerk should contain any reference whatever to the contract under which the labor or materials were furnished. The requirements of the statute are:

“Any person claiming the lien as aforesaid shall file in the office of the clerk of the district court of the county in which the land is situated, a statement setting forth the amount claimed and the items thereof as nearly as practicable, the names of the owner, the contractor, the claimant, and a description of the property subject to the lien, verified by the affidavit.”

If it be conceded, therefore, as contended, that the lien statement was admissible to prove the things the statute requires to be contained in it, still the statement does not furnish any proof of the contract, its terms, or conditions, for the reason that the recital was not in response to the requirement of the statute.

It will be observed that the date upon which any item of labor was performed or material was furnished is not disclosed by the itemized' statement. In the body of the lien statement is the recital that the work and materials were furnished “between the dates of June 15, 1920, and March 17, 1921, according to an itemized statement, thereto attached.” Section 7462 requires that “such statements shall be filed within four months after the date upon which material was last furnished, or labor last performed, under the contract. * * *”

The filing of the lien statement in the office of the clerk does not establish the lien but only establishes the fact that a lien is claimed. The lien is created by furnishing" the labor and materials and is established by the judgment of the court. The lien depends upon a contract with the owner, and its preservation depends upon the filing of the statement within four months after the date upon which material was last furnished or labor last performed under the contract. The defendant having denied generally and specifically that the material and labor were furnished under a contract with the owper, it was necessary to the establishment of the lien to submit pi oof of the contract or of facts sufficient for the court to say that there was an implied contract, and, it not being disclosed by the itemized statement that some item of labor or material was furnished within four months of the date of the filing of the lien statement, it wag necessary to the establishment of the lien that evidence be adduced from which it could reasonably be inferred that some item of material was furnished or labor performed under the contract within four months of the filing »f the lien statement.

Other errors are assigned, but we think no reversible error was committed other than above pointed out.

The judgment should be reversed, with directions to grant defendant a new trial.

By the Court: It is so ordered.  