Casey v. Ault

• Decision Date: 18 April 1892
• Citation: 29 P. 1048,4 Wash. 167
• Parties: CASEY v. AULT.
• Court: Washington Supreme Court

29 P. 1048

4 Wash. 167

CASEY v. AULT.

Supreme Court of Washington

April 18, 1892

Appeal from superior court, Snohomish county; JOHN C. DENNEY, Judge.

Action by W. W. Casey, as assignee of Pat Munholland, who claimed a laborer's lien on saw logs alleged to belong to decedent's estate, against John B. Ault, as executor of the will of Oscar E. Trask, deceased. Notice of lien was duly filed and recorded, and thereafter the lien was assigned to W. W. Casey in the lifetime of decedent. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendant appeals. Reversed.

Andrews & Barnes, for appellant.

W P. Bell, ( F. M. Headlee, of counsel,) for respondent.

SCOTT J.

This action was brought to foreclose a laborer's lien on certain saw logs. The appellant insists that the suit cannot be maintained because the claim was not presented to him as required by the provisions of chapter 104, ^[1] Code 1881. The respondent contends that it was unnecessary to present the same, and cites the decision rendered by this court in Scammon v. Ward, 1 Wash. St. 179, 23 P. 439. The lien in question here, however, arises by operation of law and stands upon an entirely different basis from that of one created by a mortgage. There is no provision for its payment pending the settlement of the estate upon the petition of any interested party, as is authorized by sections 1523 and 1524 of said Code in case of a mortgage. Such a petition could be made by any one interested in the estate, whether the claimant had presented his demand or not. These sections seem to have contemplated claims secured by mortgages, excepting so far as a deficiency is concerned after a sale of the mortgaged property, as upon a different footing from that of other claims, which was thought sufficient to except them, to the extent of the proceeds of the property mortgaged, from the rule which was provided in relation to the presentment of claims generally. There are many reasons why claims of the character of this one should be required to be presented as other claims are. A mortgage lien is created by a special agreement, which segregates the property therein designated from the other estate of the mortgagor, and specially dedicates it to the payment of the obligation which the mortgagor admits to be justly payable. Liens like the one prosecuted in this case are frequently for unliquidated claims, and may be predicated on a claim which has never been acknowledged. It is the general practice to record mortgages, although it is not requisite to do so as between the parties. Notices of liens claimed upon logs must be filed for record to give them any validity, but there is no provision, as in the case of chattel mortgages, in order to preserve the lien against other parties, which requires them to be recorded in counties to which the property may subsequently be removed; and where the logs had been cut in another county from that wherein the estate was being settled, and were subsequently removed therefrom, the executor or administrator might have no notice or knowledge of any such claim whatever, and would...