Boise-Payette Lumber Co. v. Challis Independent School Dist.
Decision Date | 02 June 1928 |
Docket Number | 4849. 4850 |
Citation | 268 P. 26,46 Idaho 403 |
Parties | BOISE-PAYETTE LUMBER COMPANY, a Corporation, Appellant and Cross-Respondent, v. CHALLIS INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 1, OF CUSTER COUNTY, IDAHO, a Municipal Corporation, Respondent and Cross-Appellant, And IRA E. TAYLOR, Defendant. NATIONAL PARK LUMBER COMPANY, a Corporation, Appellant and Cross-Respondent, v. CHALLIS INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 1, OF CUSTER COUNTY, IDAHO, a Municipal Corporation, Respondent and Cross-Appellant, And IRA E. TAYLOR, Defendant |
Court | Idaho Supreme Court |
MECHANIC'S LIEN-PUBLIC BUILDINGS-CONSTITUTIONAL LAW-STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION.
1. In the absence of a specific provision therefor, general statutes granting mechanics' liens are not construed to include public buildings under principle that enforced sale of public buildings thereunder or upon execution is against public policy.
2. Public policy of a state is to be found in constitution and statute with recourse to all provisions thereof bearing on particular subject under consideration.
3. In determining state's public policy, no one provision of constitution or statutes should be separated from others and considered alone, but all provisions bearing on particular subject should be brought into view, and it is duty of court to have recourse to whole constitution, if necessary, to ascertain true intent and meaning of any particular provision.
4. A statute of the state cannot declare a public policy which is contrary to the constitution.
5. C S., sec. 7340, purporting to grant lien on public school buildings for labor and material used in construction alteration or repair thereof, held unconstitutional as making school district responsible for debt, contract or for default liability of contractor constructing schoolhouse, in violation of Const., art. 8 sec. 4, and in accordance with public policy as shown by art. 8, sec. 3, and art. 13, sec. 6, and C. S., sec. 6920.
6. The test of constitutionality of act is not what is done thereunder in any particular instance, but what may be done.
APPEALS from the District Court of the Sixth Judicial District, for Custer County. Hon. Ralph W. Adair, Judge.
Actions to foreclose materialmen's liens. Judgments for plaintiffs. Reversed and remanded.
Reversed and remanded, with instructions. Costs to respondent and cross-appellant.
E. W. Whitcomb and F. J. Cowen, for Appellants Boise-Payette Lumber Company and National Park Lumber Co.
As a general proposition of law, public buildings, including schoolhouses, are not the subject of liens of mechanics, materialmen or laborers. (Rathbun v. State, 15 Idaho 273, 97 P. 335; Storey & Fawcett v. Nampa & M. Irr. Dist., 32 Idaho 713, 187 P. 946.)
In the absence of a statute, this rule is uniformly followed throughout the various jurisdictions in the United States. (Annotation on question as to how far public property is subject to mechanics' liens: 26 A. L. R. 326; 40 C. J. 57, 58.)
But Idaho has given express permission to subcontractors, laborers or other persons who perform labor or furnish material for any original contractor or subcontractor, to be used in the construction of any building for a city or school district. (C. S., sec. 7340.)
Such a claim of lien was allowed against the city of Lewiston in this state. (Chamberlain v. City of Lewiston, 23 Idaho 154, 129 P. 1069.)
The claim of a materialman against a school district was allowed in the case of Boise Lumber Co. v. Independent School Dist., 36 Idaho 778, 214 P. 143.
The defendant school district relied upon the provisions of section 3 of article 8 of the constitution of Idaho as a defense. It was contended that this section of the constitution prevented any recovery against the district in excess of the amount of money remaining in the building fund, and it was claimed that this position was sustained by the decision of this court in the case of Mittry v. Bonneville County, 38 Idaho 306, 222 P. 292.
Chase A. Clark, for Respondent Challis Independent School District.
The complaint did not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, as C. S., sec. 7340, is unconstitutional, as it conflicts with and defeats the purpose of Const., art. 8, sec. 3, and the allowance of a foreclosure of lien against school property is against public policy.
"The constitution has itself provided as the only means which the state has for payment of its debts, the exercise of the sovereign power of taxation, and for each political subdivision the rule is the same, these revenues are divided into specific funds, and one furnishing labor or materials to the state, knows to what he must look for payment, and the position is firmly fixed beyond cavil by section 18, article 11, which prohibits school districts from incurring indebtedness exceeding the annual revenue provided for it." (Mayrhofer v. Board of Education, 89 Cal. 110, 23 Am. St. 451, 26 P. 646; Ball v. Bannock County, 5 Idaho 602, 51 P. 454; Feil v. City of Coeur d'Alene, 23 Idaho 32, 129 P. 643, 43 L. R. A., N. S., 1095; Dunbar v. Commissioners, 5 Idaho 407, 49 P. 409; Boise Development Co. v. Boise, 26 Idaho 347, 143 P. 531.)
"The rule is that public property of a municipality is not subject to seizure and sale." (C. S., sec. 6920.)
"And it is generally held that a mechanic's lien cannot be established against what is not subject to sale on execution."
"Where the statute exempts property from sale under execution, no mechanic's lien can be established against it." (Loring & Co. v. Small, 50 Iowa 271, 32 Am. Rep. 136; Scruggs & Echols v. Decatur, 155 Ala. 616, 46 So. 989; In re Fowble (Md.), 213 F. 676.
This cause involves appeals by Boise-Payette Lumber Company and National Park Lumber Company, plaintiffs in separate lien foreclosures upon the schoolhouse of the defendant, which appeals have been consolidated, and an appeal by the defendant district in each case.
The defendant district, at a time when it could legally do so, within the constitutional limits of section 3, article 8, by reason of funds on hand and a bond issue and provision for collection of a tax to pay interest and principal thereof, made a contract with the defendant Taylor for the erection of a schoolhouse, the amount of which did not exceed the amount of such authorized funds. After the letting of this contract the district made other contracts which, added to the amount of this one and previous expenditures, exceeded the amount of such funds. Plaintiffs, who furnished materials to Taylor, used in the construction of the building, filed liens for the respective balances claimed of $ 1,997.74 and $ 661.25. The district, in the meantime, by payments upon subsequent contracts, had expended all but $ 430.36 of such funds.
The court granted foreclosure of these liens, limited to the amount of this $ 430.36 remaining, and apportioned the amount thereof between plaintiffs in proportion to their claims, and disallowed a lien for any further amount or attorney's fees or costs, upon the ground that such allowance would exceed the revenues legally provided for the construction of the schoolhouse, and "be in contravention of section 3, article 8, of the constitution."
Plaintiffs allege error in this, that their liens should have been allowed in full, including attorney's fees and costs, Defendant, as respondent, contests this point, and contends that the Taylor contract is void by reason of the district having, in total contracts, exceeded the constitutional limitation, and in any event that a full allowance of the liens would do so; and, as appellant, alleges error in overruling its general demurrers to the complaints on the grounds of insufficiency to state a cause of action against the district for foreclosure, in that the allowance of a lien upon public school buildings is against public policy, and that C. S., sec. 7340, is void for this reason, and is in violation of section 3, article 8, of the constitution.
The only question necessary for decision is the constitutionality of C. S., sec. 7340, which purports to grant such lien, as follows:
"Every subcontractor, laborer or other person, who performs labor, or furnishes material for any original contractor or subcontractor, to be used in the construction, alteration or repair of any building, machinery or other structure, for any county, city, town or school district, has a lien upon such building, machinery or structure, and all the provisions of this chapter respecting the securing and enforcing of mechanics' liens shall apply thereto, so far as applicable."
Plaintiffs concede that it is the universal rule, in the absence of a specific provision therefor, that general statutes granting mechanics' liens are not construed to include public buildings. Such decisions are based upon the principle that the enforced sale of public buildings thereunder or upon execution is against public policy, in the absence of such specific provision. (Storey & Fawcett v. Nampa & Meridian Irr. Dist., 32 Idaho 713, 187 P. 946.) For an extended discussion and citation of authorities, see Hutchinson v. Krueger, 34 Okla. 23, Ann. Cas. 1914C, 98, 124 P. 591, 41 L.R.A. N.S. 315. See, also, 40 C. J., p. 57, sec. 19; 18 R. C. L., p. 881, sec. 9; and note in 26 A. L. R. 326.
Plaintiffs rely upon C. S., sec. 7340, as such specific declaration of a public policy to make such buildings liable to a lien. Counsel for the defendant cites C. S., sec. 6920, as declarative of a public policy that public buildings are exempt from sale upon execution, except upon a judgment recovered for the price thereof or upon a mortgage thereon.
The...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Allen v. Lindbeck
... ... Cook, 84 Mont. 478, 276 P. 958; Boise-Payette ... Lumber Co. v. Challis Independent School ... ...
-
Idaho Gold Dredging Company v. Balderston
... ... of municipal corporations, to wit, independent school ... districts. (1919 C. S., sec. 824; ... 254, 232 P. 884; Joint School Dist. No ... 132 v. Dabney, 127 Okla. 234, 260 P ... Lumber Co. v. Kootenai County, 10 Idaho 490, 79 P. 396; ... 319; Boise-Payette L. Co. v. School Dist. No. 1, 46 ... Idaho 403, ... ...
-
State ex rel. Rich v. Idaho Power Co.
...of policy are restricted by the limitations of our constitution.' (Emphasis supplied.) And in Boise-Payette Lumber Co. v. Challis Independent School Dist. No. 1, 46 Idaho 403, 268 P. 26, 27, the rule is stated: 'A statute cannot declare a public policy contrary to the Constitution.' See als......
-
Davidson v. Henry L. Doherty & Co.
... ... N.W. 542; Boise-Payette Lumber Co. v. Challis Independent ... Dist ... ...