## Facts

- In 1844, legal title to a house and lot in Dayton, Ohio, became vested in Horace Pease and Perry Pease as trustees for the “proper use and benefit” of Mary P. Machir, making Mary the equitable owner of the premises.
- The trust instrument, as presented to the court, contained no express restriction on Mary’s power over her beneficial interest.
- Charles Burroughs furnished lumber and other building materials used to improve the house.
- Burroughs supplied the materials under a contract made with Mary P. Machir and her husband, William Machir, without the knowledge or consent of the trustees holding legal title.
- The Machirs did not pay for the materials.
- Burroughs perfected a statutory mechanic’s lien on the property and brought an action against William Machir, Mary P. Machir, and the trustees to enforce the lien against the premises.
- The trial court entered judgment against William Machir for the amount due and ordered that, if the debt remained unpaid for 20 days after the end of the court term, a court commissioner would lease the premises and apply the rents collected to satisfy Burroughs’s judgment.
- The Machirs appealed, arguing that because the property was held in trust for Mary, neither she nor her husband could lawfully charge the premises, and the trustees’ lack of assent barred enforcement of the lien.

## Issues

1. Whether a mechanic’s lien for materials furnished under a contract made with a married woman beneficiary and her husband may be enforced against the beneficiary’s equitable interest in land held in trust when the trust instrument places no restriction on her control of that interest.
2. Whether the trustees’ lack of knowledge or consent to the improvements prevents the lien from attaching to the equitable interest held for the beneficiary.
3. Whether the trial court could direct a commissioner to lease the premises and apply rents toward the judgment as a means of enforcing the lien against the beneficial interest.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Ohio affirmed the decree in substance.
- The court held that Burroughs’s mechanic’s lien could reach Mary P. Machir’s equitable beneficial interest because she was the equitable owner and the trust imposed no restraint on her power to charge that interest by contracting for improvements.
- The court rejected the argument that the trustees’ non-consent defeated the lien where the trustees held legal title in trust and the improvements were furnished at the instance of the equitable owner.
- The court approved the enforcement mechanism directing a court commissioner to lease the premises and apply the rents until the judgment was paid as an appropriate method of reaching the value of the beneficial interest.

## Legal Principles

- A mechanic’s lien may attach to an equitable estate in land and may be enforced in equity even though legal title is in trustees.
- When a trust for the “use and benefit” of a beneficiary contains no restraint on the beneficiary’s power over the beneficial interest, that interest may be charged for obligations incurred by the beneficiary for work or materials supplied to the property at the beneficiary’s request.
- The absence of the trustees’ knowledge or assent does not, by itself, bar a lien from reaching the beneficial interest when the trustees hold title for the beneficiary and the beneficiary’s control is not restricted.
- A court sitting in equity may order relief directed at the income or use of the property (such as leasing and applying rents) to satisfy the lien, rather than ordering an immediate sale, when that method effectuates payment from the beneficial interest.

## Conclusion

In *William Machir and Mary P. Machir His Wife, and Others v. Charles Burroughs*, the Ohio Supreme Court held that a materialman who contracted with a married woman beneficiary and her husband could enforce a mechanic’s lien against the wife’s unrestricted equitable interest in trust-held real property, and it sustained a decree collecting the debt through a court-supervised lease and application of rents despite the trustees’ lack of consent.


William Machir and Mary P. Machir His Wife, and Others v. Charles Burroughs, 14 Ohio St. 519 (1863)