Basshor v. Baltimore & O.R. Co.
| Decision Date | 10 March 1886 |
| Citation | 3 A. 285,65 Md. 99 |
| Parties | BASSHOR AND OTHERS v. BALTIMORE & O. R. CO. |
| Court | Maryland Court of Appeals |
Appeal from circuit court, Baltimore county.
John P. Poe and W. F. Wharton, for appellant.
John K. Cowen, D. G. McIntosh, and W. Irwing Cross, for appellee.
We do not see any grounds on which the mechanic's lien claimed in this case can be sustained. The Hoopes Artificial Stone Company contracted with the defendant corporation to build its bridges over the "Big" and "Little Gunpowder." The masonry work was to be built of artificial stone, and this artificial stone was to be made of finely ground stone, sand, and cement. For the purpose of grinding the stone to be used in the manufacture of the artificial stone, the Hoopes Company bought certain machinery of the appellant; and it bought also appliances to carry the stone, when made, to the piers of the bridges where it was to be used; and it is contended that the machinery and appliances thus sold to the contractor are materials furnished in the construction of the bridges, within the meaning of the mechanic's lien law. This seems to us to be stretching the lien law rather beyond anything warranted either by the letter or spirit of the law. When the law says the material-man shall have a lien for all materials furnished or used in and about the construction of bridges, it means such materials as ordinarily enter into or are used in the construction of bridges, and which are fairly within the express or implied terms of the contract between the owner and the contractor. It does not mean the machinery that may be used for the manufacture of the materials themselves. You might just as well say that the mill by which the lumber is sawed, or the tools used by the mechanics in building a house, are materials furnished in the construction of the house, as to say that the machinery used in the manufacture of the artificial stone is to be considered as part of the materials used in the construction of the masonry work of the defendant's bridges. The machinery thus used is the plant of the contractor, and can in no sense be said to be materials furnished or used in building the bridges. The mechanic's lien law is, it is true, to be liberally construed, but courts have no power to extend it to cases beyond the obvious designs and plain requirements of the statute. Judgment affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial