Barrett Mfg. Co. v. Board of Com'rs for Port of New Orleans

Citation133 La. 1022,63 So. 505
Decision Date03 November 1913
Docket Number19,511
PartiesBARRETT MFG. CO. v. BOARD OF COM'RS FOR PORT OF NEW ORLEANS et al
CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana

Rehearing Denied December 1, 1913

SYLLABUS

(Syllabus by the Court.)

Act No 134 of 1906, entitled 'An act relative to building contracts in cities in this state of over fifty thousand inhabitants, providing for the bond to be given therein for the protection of the owner, subcontractor, workmen, laborer, mechanics, and furnishers of materials, for the recording of the same, and the proceedings to be had thereunder,' does not apply to the board of commissioners of the port of New Orleans, a corporate state agency, created for the purpose, among others, of constructing wharves and sheds for the accommodation of the shipping of said port. As a general rule public property is not subject to a mechanics' lien unless expressly made subject to such lien by statute.

John Dymon, Jr., and A. Giffen Levy, both of New Orleans, for appellant Barrett Mfg. Co.

James Wilkinson, of New Orleans, for appellant Board of Com'rs.

Rouse, Grant & Grant, of New Orleans, for appellee National Surety Co.

OPINION

LAND, J.

This is a suit by a furnisher of materials to a contractor employed by the defendant board to construct a certain freight shed on one of the wharves of the port of New Orleans.

The shed was completed and delivered, and the contract price was paid in full, more than a month before notice of plaintiff's claim was given to defendant board.

Plaintiff seeks to hold said board liable as surety under Act 134 of 1906 for failing to exact and record a bond of the contractor for the payment of furnisher of materials, subcontractors, etc. The main defense is that Act 134 of 1906 has no application to the defendant board, a state agent, for the purpose of maintaining and constructing wharves, sheds, etc., in the interest of the commerce of the port of New Orleans.

There was judgment in favor of the defendant board, and the plaintiff has appealed.

The defendant board, as created by Act 70 of 1896, is a 'board of state commissioners,' appointed by the Governor, and vested with jurisdiction over the port of New Orleans, which extends beyond the limits of said city into the parishes of Jefferson and St. Bernard. The board was vested with power to regulate the commerce and traffic of the 'harbor of New Orleans,' to have and enjoy all the rights, powers, and immunities incident to corporations, to take charge of and administer the public wharves of the port of New Orleans, to construct new wharves and sheds when necessary, to provide for lighting and policing the same, etc., etc. The board was vested with power to levy and collect wharfage charges on shipping for the purpose of defraying the expenses of administration, maintenance, and construction. By Act 36 of 1900 the said board was empowered to acquire by purchase or expropriation wharves and landings within the limits of the port of New Orleans. By Act 180 of 1908, which was adopted as a constitutional amendment, the board was empowered to issue $ 3,500,000 of 5 per cent. negotiable bonds, the proceeds to be expended in the extension of existing wharves, for building new wharves, for erecting sheds, for constructing roadways and other improvements, for the purchase of suitable dredges, barges, and tug boats, for the payment of wharves or other property purchased or expropriated, and for the payment of outstanding obligations. In order to secure the payment by preference of the principal and interest of said bonds, all revenues of the board collectible under existing laws were pledged. It follows from this legislation that the defendant board is a state agency, vested with certain powers, in the interest of the commerce of the port of New Orleans; that all of its revenues and funds have been dedicated to certain public uses; and that the board has and can have no corporate property or funds of its own to meet claims of the kind now urged by the plaintiff.

Plaintiff's demand is founded on the failure of the defendant to exact of the contractor a bond with good and solvent security for not less than one-half of the contract price, conditioned 'for the true and faithful performance of the contract, and the payment of all subcontractors, workmen, laborers, mechanics and furnishers of materials by the undertaker, contractor, master mechanic or engineer, the said bond to be made in favor of the owner, subcontractor, workmen, laborers, mechanics and furnishers of materials jointly as their interest may appear,' as provided by Act 134 of 1906. The same statute further enacts that 'if the owner fails to exact said bond, or if he fails to cause same to be recorded in the office of the recorder of mortgages in the manner and within the time hereinabove provided, the owner shall be deemed in default, and shall be liable to the same extent as the surety would have been.'

Public corporations are not mentioned in the statute, which imposes a personal liability on the owner for failure to exact and record a good and sufficient bond from the contractor. The rule in our sister states is enunciated as follows:

'Public property is not as a rule subject to a mechanics' lien; it being considered that, unless it is expressly made subject to such lien by statute, it is by implication exempted from the operation of the lien laws. Accordingly a mechanics' lien cannot attach to a county courthouse, a county bridge, a municipal fire bell tower, municipal waterworks, a public library erected by a town, a lunatic asylum, or public school building.' 27 Cyc. 25, 26.

As usual, there are a few cases to the contrary. We find the following note (Id. p. 25):

'A statute imposing a personal...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT