Hubbell v. Cantonwine

• Decision Date: 25 January 1923
• Docket Number: 17511.
• Citation: 123 Wash. 328,212 P. 176
• Parties: HUBBELL v. CANTONWINE et al.
• Court: Washington Supreme Court

212 P. 176

123 Wash. 328

HUBBELL v. CANTONWINE et al.

No. 17511.

Supreme Court of Washington

January 25, 1923

Department 1.

Appeal from Superior Court, Walla Walla County; Edward C. Mills Judge.

Action by J. Hubbell against B. F. Cantonwine and others to foreclose a farm laborer's lien, in which Henry Hays intervened, claiming a lien for harvesting the crop. From a judgment foreclosing the lien of intervener but dismissing the action of plaintiff, plaintiff appeals. Reversed and remanded.

John C. Hurspool, of Walla Walla, for appellant.

T. M McKinney and Earl W. Benson, both of Walla Walla, for respondents.

BRIDGES J.

The plaintiff has appealed from a judgment dismissing his action to foreclose his farm laborer's lien.

The facts, which are stipulated, are that, during the years 1920 and 1921, the defendant Cantonwine was engaged in farming certain lands in eastern Washington, belonging to one Pettyjohn and one Ellerau, which lands he held under two separate leases. In the year 1921 that portion of the land which belonged to Ellerau was in wheat and the Pettyjohn land was in stubble to be plowed in the spring of 1921 for a crop in 1922, excepting that on the last-named land a small portion thereof was sown to barley in 1921. Cantonwine used these two tracts of land as one farm. He employed the appellant to plow this stubble land at an agreed price of $615. The plowing was done, but no part of the agreed price was paid except $170, thus leaving unpaid $445. In May, 1921, the appellant filed his claim of lien upon the crop of wheat which at that time was growing on that part of the land leased from Ellerau, and also on the crop of barley then growing on that portion of the land leased from Pettyjohn.

The intervener and respondent, Hays, later harvested the crops of wheat and barley, such having been done at the request of Cantonwine, and, not having been paid, claimed a lien on both. It was further stipulated that none of the work performed by the plaintiff was done upon either the wheat or the barley crop nor upon the land where they were grown, but was done on the remainder of the land, preparing it for the crop of 1922. The court foreclosed the lien of the intervener but dismissed the action of the plaintiff, because, under the statute, he was not entitled to a lien under the facts stipulated.

The statute, being Rem. Comp. St. § 1188, reads as follows:

'Any person who shall do labor upon any farm or land, in tilling the same or in sowing or harvesting or thrashing any grain, as laborer, contractor, or otherwise, or laboring upon, or securing or assisting in securing or housing any crop or crops sown, raised, or threshed thereon during the year in which said work or labor was done, such person shall have a lien upon such crops as shall have been raised upon all or any of such land, for such work or labor. * * *'

The exact question is: Is one who tills a portion of a farm which is to be sown to grain during the year following his work, entitled to a lien on the grain grown on another portion of the farm during the year in which he performed the work, but upon which portion he has not labored? The lower court, in a memorandum opinion, said:

'It seems clear that it was the intention of the Legislature that any person who shall do labor upon any farm or land in tilling the same shall have a lien for such labor upon such crops as shall have been raised upon any or all of such land as he has tilled during the year in which the crop is produced, but beyond that a reasonable construction of the statute cannot go.'

...