Hughes v. Lambertville Elec. Light, Heat & Power Co.

• Decision Date: 21 May 1895
• Citation: 53 N.J.E. 435,32 A. 69
• Parties: HUGHES v. LAMBERTVILLE ELECTRIC LIGHT, HEAT & POWER CO.
• Court: New Jersey Court of Chancery

32 A. 69

53 N.J.L. 435

HUGHES

v. LAMBERTVILLE ELECTRIC LIGHT, HEAT & POWER CO.

Court of Chancery of New Jersey.

May 21, 1895.

(Syllabus by the Court)

Bill by Elias C. Hughes against the Lambertville Electric Light, Heat & Power Company for a receiver. On applications by one Zeigler and one Morrison for prior payment of their respective claims out of the assets of the company.

James Buchanan, for receiver.

D. Stuart Robinson, for Mary S. Jacobs.

Chas. A. Skillman, for Zeigler's Adm'r.

H. A. Pluck, for the Southern Electrical Company.

BIRD, V. C. The defendant is an insolvent corporation. It was organized for the purpose of constructing an electric light and power plant. It constructed a building suit able for the purpose, and placed therein all of the machinery and appliances necessary for completely transmitting light and power throughout the city of Lambertville. It erected poles at suitable distances on the sides of several streets. It strung wires from the building, after securely attaching them to the necessary apparatus upon said poles, and from said wires and poles the Southern Electric Company strung wires to and into a large number of houses, for the purpose of transmitting light into said houses. After the work was completed in accordance with the intention, it was put in operation, and light was thereby communicated to the dwellings, stores, and other business places. Soon after the practicability of the undertaking was demonstrated, the company was obliged to confess its insolvency, and in winding up its affaire the receiver has been presented with a claim in the name of the Southern Electric Company. This claim, with all its other assets, was assigned by the latter company, in 1893, for the benefit of its creditors. While its assets were still in the hands of the assignee, and in process of administration, one Zeigler, a resident of New Jersey and creditor of the Southern Electric Company, issued an attachment against it, and levied upon the credit of said company in the hands of the defendant, the Lambertville Light & Power Company. As this attachment was issued and levied in January of 1894, in March following the assignee sold and assigned the claim of the Southern Electric Company to one Morrison, who now claims to be entitled to such dividends as the Southern Electric Company would be entitled to if it had made no assignment, and consequently disputes the claim of Zeigler under his attachment. That the claim of Zeigler must be satisfied out of any credit to which the Southern Electric Company would be otherwise entitled is so clear that discussion is unnecessary. See Moore v. Bonnell, 31 N. J. Law, 98. But Morrison insists that he is entitled to the benefit of the mechanic's lien law, and therefore entitled to be preferred as to the proceeds of the sale of the plant. This claim to a lien arises from the fact that the Southern Electric Company supplied the wires and insulators and did the work or labor of connecting the said wires with the poles and wires erected upon and along the streets with the dwelling houses, stores, and other places of business, and that because of such connection they became part of the plant. This claim to the benefit of the lien law should be supported. The fifth section of the mechanic's lien law (Revision, p. 609) provides that "any fixed machinery or gearing or other fixtures for manufacturing purposes, shall be considered a building for the purpose of this act." The phrase, "or other fixtures for manufacturing purposes," is as...