Forbes v. Willamette Falls Electric Co.

• Decision Date: 31 March 1890
• Citation: 23 P. 670,19 Or. 61
• Parties: FORBES v. WILLAMETTE FALLS ELECTRIC CO.
• Court: Oregon Supreme Court

23 P. 670

19 Or. 61

FORBES v. WILLAMETTE FALLS ELECTRIC CO.

Supreme Court of Oregon

March 31, 1890

Appeal from circuit court, Multnomah county; L.B. STEARNS, Judge.

This is a suit to enforce a number of liens for labor. It is alleged one Stromach had a contract with the defendant corporation to dig holes, and place the poles therein, and stretch the necessary wires on the same, from, at, or near the city of Portland to a point at or near Oregon City. The said wires were to be used by the defendant corporation for the purpose of transmitting light and power from the company's works at the falls of the Willamette river, to the city of Portland, and for other electrical purposes. The plaintiff as well as the others whose claims were assigned to him, rest their claim to enforce this lien on the fact that Stromach had a contract with the defendant corporation to do the work which they performed, and that he employed each of said parties, at a fixed rate of wages per day, to assist in its performance.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

Poles set in the ground, connected together by wire in the usual way for the transmission of electricity for the purpose of light and power, constitute a structure, within the meaning of section 3669, Hill's Code, and a lien attached for labor performed on such structure under employment by the contractor.

. Time-checks given by the contractor to the laborer, though not conclusive against the owner of the structure, are declarations of the defendant's agents in the line of his employment, and are to be considered and weighed for whatever they are worth; and, if their effect be not countervailed in some way, may be sufficient proof of such claim.

The statute allows the court to tax an attorney's fee in favor of the plaintiff in case of the foreclosure of a lien. Held that, when 15 liens were foreclosed in one suit, $10 for each claim was not unreasonable.

On the subject of interest in such case, Milling Co. v Riley, 1 Or. 183, approved and followed.

J.C. Moreland, for appellant.

G.D. Young, for respondent.

STRAHAN, J., (after stating the facts as above.)

The plaintiff's right to the remedy which he seeks must depend upon the statute. Section 3669, Hill's Code provides: "Every mechanic, artisan, machinist, builder, contractor, lumber merchant, laborer, and other person performing labor upon, or furnishing material of any kind to be used in the construction, alteration, or repair, either in whole or part, of, any building, wharf, bridge, ditch, flume, tunnel, fence, machinery, or aqueduct, or any other structure or superstructure, shall have a lien upon the same for the work or labor done or materials furnished by each, respectively, whether done or furnished at the instance of the owner of the building or other improvement, or his agent; and every contractor, subcontractor, architect, builder, or other person having charge of the construction, alteration, or repair, in whole or in part, of any...