Purtell v. Chi. Forge & Bolt Co.

• Citation: 42 N.W. 265,74 Wis. 132
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Wisconsin
• Decision Date: 25 April 1889
• Parties: PURTELL v. CHICAGO FORGE & BOLT CO. ET AL.

74 Wis. 132

42 N.W. 265

PURTELL

v.CHICAGO FORGE & BOLT CO. ET AL.

Supreme Court of Wisconsin.

April 25, 1889.

Appeal from circuit court, La Fayette county.

The defendant the Chicago Forge & Bolt Company, having contracted with the defendant the Freeport, Dodgeville & Northern Railroad Company to erect a number of bridges across the Pecatonica river, on the line of its railroad, sublet the work to the plaintiff, who erected 10 such bridges in La Fayette county, for which the Chicago Forge & Bolt Company became indebted to him in a sum exceeding $9,000, which is unpaid. Within 30 days after the performing of such work the plaintiff served on the Freeport, Dodgeville & Northern Railroad Company the notice prescribed in Rev. St. § 3315, as the basis for the enforcement of a lien on such bridges as subcontractor. The plaintiff also duly filed his claim for a lien, and brought this action to enforce the same on such bridges, and the land upon which they are erected, within the periods required by section 3318. The complaint is in the usual form of complaints in such actions. It alleges the above facts, and, further, that when such notice was served the railroad company owed the principal contractor, the Chicago Forge & Bolt Company, $15,000, and that afterwards the railroad company consolidated with another railroad company, which consolidated company is the defendant, the Chicago, Madison & Northern Railroad Company, and the owner of the said bridges, and the right of way upon which the same were constructed. It also states the location of each bridge, and the amount due the plaintiff for the construction of each. Two general demurrers to the complaint were interposed by the defendants,--one by the two railroad companies, and the other by the Chicago Forge & Bolt Company. Certain special grounds of demurrer were assigned, but these are not relied upon. The circuit court overruled the demurrers. From the orders overruling the same two appeals have been taken to this court,--one by the railroad companies; the other by the Chicago Forge & Bolt Company.Stevens & Morris, for appellants.

Dey & Friend, for respondent.

LYON, J., ( after stating the facts as above.)

That the legislature has the power to enact laws for the enforcement of liens for labor upon bridges and other structures of a railway company, although the same are part and parcel of its railway, or essential to the full and complete operation thereof, cannot, we think, be successfully denied. Such power is found in section 1, art. 11, of the constitution, as interpreted by this court in Attorney General v. Railroad Co., 35 Wis. 425. That by enacting the present lien laws the legislature intended to exercise that power, and give a lien upon railway bridges for work performed upon them, we cannot doubt. The language of the statute is general, and no exception of railroad bridges from its operation is expressed. So far as the same is applicable to this case, the statute (Rev. St. § 3314) is that “every person who as principal contractor performs any work or labor * * * in or about the erection * * * of any bridge * * * shall have a lien thereupon, and upon the interests of the owner of such * * * bridge, in and to the land upon which the same is situated.” The next section gives the same lien to a subcontractor who performs the work, to the extent of the owner's indebtedness to the principal contractor. There is nothing in the statute which can operate to restrain these general words. By familiar rules of statutory construction such general unqualified language must have a general application, and must be held to include all bridges, unless some are excluded on grounds of public policy. This rule, in stronger terms even, was held in Harrington v. Smith, 28 Wis. 43, and has since been steadily adhered to. Encking v. Simmons, Id. 273; Fallass v. Pierce, 30 Wis. 443; Chase v. Whiting, Id. 544; Landon v. Burke, 33 Wis. 452;Crerar v. Railroad Co., 35 Wis. 67;Comstock v. Bechtel, 63...