Harris v. Schultz

• Decision Date: 22 October 1884
• Parties: HARRIS AND OTHERS v. SCHULTZ AND OTHERS.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

64 Iowa 539

21 N.W. 22

HARRIS AND OTHERS

v.SCHULTZ AND OTHERS.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

Filed October 22, 1884.

Appeal from Wright district court.

Action to enforce a mechanic's lien for the price of lightning-rods furnished for and affixed to a building upon a contract with the owner. A demurrer to the petition was sustained, and, plaintiffs refusing to plead further, a judgment was entered for defendants, from which plaintiffs appeal.Nagle & Weber, for appellants.

Ladd & Peterson, for appellees.

BECK, J.

1. The amount in controversy being less than $100, the cause was sent here upon the certificate of the judge trying it. The questions certified involve the inquiry, and no other, whether the law provides a mechanic's lien for lightning-rods attached to houses and other structures. The statute provides that “every mechanic or other person who shall do any labor upon, or furnish any materials, machinery, or fixtures for, any building, erection, or other improvement upon land,” shall be entitled to a lien therefor. Acts Sixteenth General Assembly, c. 100, § 3; Miller's Code, § 2130. Lightning-rods are designed to protect and preserve buildings to which they are attached. They are secured to the buildings by nails, screws, or bolts, in such manner as to render them permanent and substantial. They are not different in character or purpose from metallic gutters or spouting, or iron anchors. All are designed to secure buildings against the elements and forces of nature. Lightning-rods are for protection against electricity; gutters and spouting for protection against rain; and anchors to give security against wind. It cannot be claimed that gutters and spouting and iron anchors are not a part of the building; nor can such a claim be made as to lightning-rods. They clearly become essential parts of the buildings to which they are attached. The labor and materials used in their construction and erection is done and furnished for the building in contemplation of the statute, for which a lien will attach.

2. The utility of lightning-rods cannot be a subject of inquiry in this case. They are put up for a useful purpose, and are regarded by those who cause them to be attached to their buildings as being a useful protection against electricity. The utility and benefits of parts of a building cannot be questioned when the laborer and material-man is seeking to enforce remedies for their construction. Drew v. Mason, 81 Ill. 499, was decided under a...