Harper v. Independence Development Co.

• Decision Date: 02 April 1910
• Docket Number: Civil 1125
• Citation: 108 P. 701,13 Ariz. 176
• Parties: JOHN HARPER, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. INDEPENDENCE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, a Corporation, THOMAS E. FARRISH, J. C. GOODWIN, R. G. GOODWIN, and G. J. RIDENOUR, Defendants and Appellees
• Court: Arizona Supreme Court

108 P. 701

13 Ariz. 176

JOHN HARPER, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. INDEPENDENCE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, a Corporation, THOMAS E. FARRISH, J. C. GOODWIN, R. G. GOODWIN, and G. J. RIDENOUR, Defendants and Appellees

Civil No. 1125

Supreme Court of Arizona

April 2, 1910

APPEAL from a judgment of the District Court of the Fifth Judicial District, in and for Gila County. Frederick S. Nave, Judge. Affirmed.

The facts are stated in the opinion.

Allred & Whitcher, for Appellant.

Under our present mine lien statute a mine laborer is entitled to a lien upon the mine or mining claim upon which he has labored to secure the payment of his wages in all cases where the labor is done on the claim either at the request of the owner of the claim or by his authority. The legislature in enacting paragraph 2904 gave to laborers and materialmen contributing by their labor or material to the improvement of a mine or mining claim the most ample security for the payment of their wages or the cost of their materials. Such act should be construed by the court so as to effectuate its object. Land Assn. v. Ford, 168 U.S. 513, 18 S.Ct. 170, 42 L.Ed. 562. "Where the owner of a mine had leased the mine with a contract that the lessee might operate the mine and extract ores, with the privilege of buying the mine, and the mine was subject to the lien of miners and others doing work on the mine for the lessee while operating the mine under such contract, . . . it is clear that the mining and reduction of ore, the timbering of the mine and repairing the mill were directly contemplated by the parties at the time of the execution of the instrument." Eaman v Bashford, 4 Ariz. 199, 37 P. 24; Moore v Jackson, 49 Cal. 109; Gates v. Fredericks, 5 Ariz. 343, 52 P. 1118. Personal liability of a defendant is not necessary in order to fix a lien upon his property. 27 Cyc. 349.

George R. Hill, for Appellees Goodwin and Goodwin.

"There is no statute, nor is there any principle, which can be called into requisition, which makes the leaseholder the agent of the lessor. Parties furnishing material or doing labor for the leaseholder undoubtedly may have a lien against the particular estate of the leaseholder; but to hold the owner of the property responsible and his estate in the property responsible would be to put the landlord at the mercy of the tenant." Hadley v. Cummings, 7 Ariz. 258, 64 P. 443. "Those owing debts contracted by lessees or others having an appreciable interest in lands which have arisen in regard to the lands, may file a lien to protect the payment of such debts against the interest which said lessees or others having an appreciable interest in the land may have herein; but although a mechanic's lien may reach such interest, it cannot reach the interest of the owner in fee, unless he is directly or by agency connected with the debt." Griffin v. Hurley, 7 Ariz. 399 65 P. 147; Bogan v. Roy & Titcomb, 10 Ariz. 237, 86 P. 13.

OPINION

DOAN, J.

-- This action was brought by appellant in the district court of Gila county, on March 26, 1908, against the appellees above named, for the sum of $9,519.28, and the foreclosure of a laborer's lien upon a group of mining claims securing that amount. The trial court gave judgment against the Independence Development Company, and decreed a foreclosure of the lien against the six mining claims found to be owned by it, but denied any relief as against the appellees Thomas E. Farrish, G. J. Ridenour, and J. C. and R. G. Goodwin and seven mining claims found to be owned by the Goodwins. From the judgment of the trial court, denying relief as against the last-named appellees and their property, the appellant has taken this appeal.

The facts in this case are quite complex, but appear from the record to be about as follows:

J. C. and R. G. Goodwin, on April 1, 1906, were the owners of a group of seven claims, adjoining each other, to wit, the Imperial No. 1, Imperial No. 2, Imperial No. 3, Oro Cobre No. 1, Oro Cobre No. 2, Oro Cobre No. 3, and Oro Cobre No. 4. On April 1, 1906, J. C. Goodwin, on behalf of himself and R. G. Goodwin, entered into an agreement with Thomas E. Farrish for the sale of the said seven claims, which agreement was as follows:

"Agreement.

"This agreement, made the first day of April, A.D. 1906, by and between J. C. Goodwin of Temple, A.T., and R. G. Goodwin of Globe, A.T., parties of the first part, and T. E. Farrish, of Phoenix, A.T., party of the second part, witnesseth: That the parties of the first part, being the owners of seven mining claims in Globe mining district, Gila county, A.T., about two and one-half (2 1/2) miles northeast from the 66 ranch and adjoining the Goodwin and Cole group of claims on the south, two of the claims being formerly owned by Kinney and McCarty, and then known as the Irene No. 1 and Irene No. 2, and the said claims are now known as the Superior No. 1, No. 2 and No. 3 and the Oro Cobre No. 1, No. 2, No. 3 and No. 4. Now therefore the parties of the first part agree to sell and convey the above-described property, under a good and sufficient title to the party of the second part, upon the following terms and conditions: One thousand ($1,000.00) dollars in cash, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged; twelve thousand ($12,000.00) dollars to be paid by the party of the second part or his assigns to the parties of the first part on or before twelve (12) months from the date hereof, and the further sum of twelve thousand ($12,000.00) dollars to be paid as aforesaid on or before two (2) years from the date hereof. It is further understood and agreed by and between the parties hereto that the party of the second part or his assigns may take possession of the said mining claims and develop the same during the life of this agreement; and ship ore therefrom at his discretion, provided, that from the proceeds of such shipments of ore, the party of the second part shall pay to the party of the first part one-half (1/2) of the amount received from such sales of ore to be applied upon the payments as aforesaid. The party of the second part hereby agrees to abide by the terms of this agreement, and in default of any of the payments as above, to surrender the property to the parties of the first part, and forfeit all moneys paid and expended thereon.

"Signed and sealed the day and date above written.

"J. C. GOODWIN,

"Party of the First Part.

"T. E. FARRISH,

"Party of the Second Part."

Thereupon Farrish went into the possession of the property embraced in the above agreement, and located four claims adjoining, as follows: Parthian, Lulla B., Nelly Bly, and Ore Here. Thereafter Farrish and others organized the Independence Development Company, deeded to this company the four claims located by Farrish already named, and assigned to it the agreement between Farrish and the Goodwins set out above. The Independence Development Company then located two additional claims adjoining the original seven Goodwin claims and the four Farrish claims. These two claims were the Parthian No. 2 and the Last Parthian, making in all thirteen claims held by the company by virtue of the assignment of the Goodwin-Farrish agreement, the deed from Farrish, and the locations of the company. The company then undertook to mine, work and develop this group of thirteen claims, which development work extended from about October 17, 1906, to May 1, 1908, and the work was done almost entirely upon one of the claims, named the Imperial No. 2, embraced in the agreement between the Goodwins and Farrish, and assigned by Farrish to the company. In the performance of the mining and development work the company employed the appellant, Harper, and some sixty other miners and laborers, and finally became indebted to Harper and the others in varying amounts. Harper acquired assignments from the other miners for the respective amounts due from the company; the amount owing to Harper individually and by virtue of the assignment of claims aggregated the sum of $9,519.28. For this amount Harper made out, verified and recorded a lien and bill of particulars, duly served all parties with copies in duplicate of the same, and instituted suit against the Independence Development Company, J. C. and R. G. Goodwin, Thomas E. Farrish, and G. J. Ridenour, for the amount claimed and the foreclosure of the lien therefor upon the entire group of thirteen claims. The trial court gave judgment against the Independence Development Company for the amount claimed, and decreed a foreclosure of the lien upon the six claims owned by it, but denied any relief as against the Goodwins, Farrish, and Ridenour and the seven claims embraced in the Goodwin-Farrish agreement, which was assigned to the company. From this portion of the judgment this appeal was taken.

It appears from the record that the labor performed by plaintiff and his assignors was such work as would, under chapter 2, title 40, Revised Statutes of Arizona of 1901, entitle them to a lien. Plaintiff clearly had the right to bring suit thereon for his individual claim and as assignee of the claims of his fellow-workmen. The record shows that the lien for the aggregate amount, $9,519,28, was duly perfected under the statute, and suit properly brought within the statutory period thereafter. The judgment of the trial court against the Independence Development Company for $9,519.28 was perfectly...