Chapman Valve Manuf'g Co. v. Oconto Water Co.

• Decision Date: 13 November 1894
• Citation: 89 Wis. 264,60 N.W. 1004
• Parties: CHAPMAN VALVE MANUF'G CO. v. OCONTO WATER CO.
• Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

89 Wis. 264

60 N.W. 1004

CHAPMAN VALVE MANUF'G CO.

v.OCONTO WATER CO.

Supreme Court of Wisconsin.

Nov. 13, 1894.

Appeal from circuit court, Oconto county; Samuel D. Hastings, Jr., Judge.

Action by the Chapman Valve Manufacturing Company against the Oconto Water Company to enforce a mechanic's lien. From a judgment denying the lien, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

The defendant is a corporation organized under chapter 86 of the Revised Statutes of Wisconsin for the purpose of supplying to the city of Oconto, Wis., and its inhabitants, water for protection against fire and for domestic, manufacturing, and other purposes. It was authorized by ordinance of the common council of the city of Oconto to construct, operate, and maintain a system of waterworks in that city for 30 years. After its system of waterworks had been completed, it was accepted by the common council as being in conformity with the ordinance which authorized its construction. The plaintiff furnished certain valves, which were used in the construction of the defendant's waterworks plant, for which it has not been paid. It brings this action to enforce a mechanic's lien against the defendant's waterworks system or plant, or, if that be denied, then against the valves themselves as machinery. The valves are a necessary part of the system of waterworks. The circuit court held, on grounds of public policy, that the mechanic's lien laws do not apply to nor give a lien upon the waterworks system or plant of the defendant, and denied the lien, but gave a money judgment to plaintiff for the amount of its claim. From such judgment the plaintiff appeals.Miller, Noyes & Miller, for appellant.

Webster & Martineau, for respondent.

NEWMAN, J. (after stating the facts).

The instant case is an action for a statutory lien upon the entire waterworks plant of the defendant, or, if that is denied, upon the valves furnished by the plaintiff, as machinery which may be removed. In Wilkinson v. Hoffman, 61 Wis. 637, 21 N. W. 816, this court held, on grounds of public policy and convenience, that a mechanic's lien was not given by section 3314, Rev. St., against machinery placed in a building which was a part of a waterworks plant, owned by a city, and held for public use. It was said that: “The public inconvenience which would result from having such machinery removed is too obvious and grave to require any discussion. The comfort, health, safety, and property of the citizens would be greatly endangered by allowing the facilities for procuring water to be suspended, even for a short period. In view of the serious consequences which would result by allowing the lien to attach to machinery thus used, and which more than countervails any private advantage, we are inclined to hold that the provision does not apply in the case before us.” And so the court held, “on grounds of public necessity and convenience,” that a lien was not given by the statute on property so held for public use. The city of Oconto has provided for the supply of the water necessary for its protection against fire, and for all the uses of its citizens, by a contract with the defendant, which is a corporation specially organized for that purpose, for the term of 30 years. The defendant's system of waterworks was constructed under an ordinance of the city, which directed, in considerable detail, the manner of its construction, extent and capacity of the plant, and the manner of its operation. It also gave it a franchise to construct and operate its works for 30 years. After the plant was completed, the city accepted it by an ordinance which declared it to be constructed in accordance with the ordinance and the franchise conferred. In this manner the city provided itself with a system of waterworks for the protection and convenience of its inhabitants. It became and was the waterworks of the city of Oconto. It is manifest that the inconvenience and danger which must result from a stoppage of the operation of the waterworks, or of any interference with their use and operation, to the city and to its inhabitants, would...