Frailey, Use, &C., v. Winchester, &C., R. Co.
| Decision Date | 07 February 1895 |
| Parties | Frailey, for use, &c., v. Winchester, &c., R. Co. Baker, for use, &c., v. Same. |
| Court | Kentucky Court of Appeals |
APPEALS FROM LEE CIRCUIT COURT.
J. M. BEATTY AND H. L. WHEELER FOR APPELLANT.
ED. M. WALLACE FOR APPELLEE.
JUDGE PAYNTER DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT.
The appellee entered into a contract with the Beattyville Construction Company to build a certain part of its road. Beattyville Construction Company sublet to Thompson Bros., Collier & Co. Pryse & Robinson entered into a contract with the last named company, undertaking a portion of the work in the construction of the railroad.
During the progress of the work Pryse & Robinson gave laborers whom they employed in the work what were known as labor tickets. Certain ones of these laborers disposed of their tickets to David Pryse until they amounted to three hundred and seventy-five dollars and sixty-eight cents. In the same way Thomas Pryse acquired labor tickets amounting to one hundred and forty-six dollars and eighty cents. Each of the Pryses filed his separate statement and affidavit with the county clerk, giving the names of the persons from whom each obtained the labor tickets, and in which it was stated that the liens were being asserted for the use of the Pryses for their respective claims. Each proceeded upon the idea that he was entitled to a lien on the property and franchises of the Winchester and Beattyville Railroad Company. In proceedings had below the court held that they did not have liens on the property and franchises of appellee. From that judgment this appeal is prosecuted for the use of Thomas and David Pryse.
The liens are asserted under an act, entitled "An act to create a lien on canals, railroads and other public improvements in favor of persons furnishing labor or materials for the construction or improvement thereof," found on page 88, Appendix to General Statues.
Neither of the Pryses performed labor, or furnished labor, material or teams, for the construction or improvement of the railroad.
Not having performed labor, or furnished labor, materials or teams, for the construction of the railroad, under a contract, express or implied, with the owner, or by a sub-contract thereunder, they are not entitled to a lien upon the property and franchises of the appellee. By the express terms of the statute none except those so situated can assert a lien under the act supra.
None but those who performed the labor, furnished labor,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Steele & Lebby v. Flynn-Sullivan Co.
...for, since it did not personally furnish the appliance, the rental value of which forms the claim sued on. The inapplicability of the Frailey opinion is made manifest by the fact that assignor of the claim there involved had not perfected the lien at the time of the assignment therein, nor ......