Collins v. Mott

• Decision Date: 31 October 1869
• Citation: 45 Mo. 100
• Parties: COLLINS & HOLLIDAY, Appellants, v. D. E. MOTT, Respondent.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

45 Mo. 100

COLLINS & HOLLIDAY, Appellants,

v.D. E. MOTT, Respondent.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

October Term, 1869.

Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court.

Ewing & Holliday, for appellants.

Madill, and Crews, North & Laurie, for respondent.BLISS, Judge, delivered the opinion of the court.

One Greenwood and others were the lessees of a building which had been converted into a mill for making kiln-dried corn meal; everything belonged to them but the naked buildings and ground. The plaintiffs furnished labor and materials, and made repairs upon the machinery and improvements belonging to the lessees; filed their accounts to perfect their lien; obtained judgment, sold and bid in the property in controversy. Defendant held a mortgage upon the same property, and the controversy is between their respective claims. The specific articles in dispute are the steam boiler and engine, and it is conceded that if the mechanics' lien attached to this property, the plaintiff's claim should prevail. The defendant claims that they are not subject to the plaintiff's lien, because, first, it could not attach to that description of property; and, second, the labor and materials were not furnished and bestowed upon them, but upon other parts of the mill.

Section 4, chapter 195, Gen. Stat. 1865, concerning mechanics' liens, attaches the lien to the interest of the lessee, in leased premises; but in that and the preceding sections it is confined to the building, erection, and improvement, including the land, if the work is done for the proprietor. The mechanic holds his lien for work, materials, fixtures, engine, boiler, and machinery done and furnished by him, but, in describing the property upon which such lien is held, no terms are used which can include such engine, etc., unless they have become part of the realty, when the lien, of course, would cover them. The cases cited by the plaintiff from Pennsylvania only go to that extent; and the same court, in Haworth v. Wallace, 14 Penn. 118, and in Church v. Griffith, 9 Penn. 117, held that trade fixtures and buildings, removable by the tenant, were not subject to the mechanics' lien under the statute. This lien is statutory, and the decisions in each State must conform to its own statute. Thus, in Ombony v. Jones, 19 N. Y. 234, upon a statute providing that when labor and materials are furnished for a building, by contract with the owner thereof, the person furnishing them shall hold a lien upon the building and the lot to the...