Knapp v. St. Louis, Kansas City & Northern Ry. Co.

• Decision Date: 31 October 1881
• Citation: 74 Mo. 374
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court
• Parties: KNAPP et al., Appellants, v. THE ST. LOUIS, KANSAS CITY & NORTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY

74 Mo. 374

KNAPP et al., Appellants,

v.THE ST. LOUIS, KANSAS CITY & NORTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY

Supreme Court of Missouri.

October Term, 1881.

Appeal from St. Louis Court of Appeals.--The case is reported in 6 Mo. App. 205.

AFFIRMED.

G. M. Stewart for appellants.

The statute in question, on any of the questions involved, has never been construed by this court. Schulenburg v. R. R. Co., 67 Mo. 442, was a case arising under another statute, and in St. Louis Bridge & Construction Co. v. R. R. Co., 72 Mo. 664, none of these questions were in controversy. It was held in Dunn v. R. R. Co., 24 Mo. 493, and McPheeters v. Bridge Co., 28 Mo. 465, that the mechanic's lien laws then in force did not apply to railroad bridges, and reasons founded on public policy were given for these decisions. The statute approved March 21st, 1873, is not only an entire innovation upon the laws of Missouri, but is far more comprehensive than any similar statutory enactment of any sister state which has come to our notice. It was the intention of the legislature to sweep away all distinctions which had before that time been made between railroad and other property, and to give the parties named in the act the full benefit of a lien to the same extent as if they were seeking it against a private individual. This act is entirely new, and is complete in itself. The remedies and reliefs provided are such as were heretofore unknown in this State, and every step necessary to be taken in order to establish and secure them is found in the act. In construing it the purpose of the legislature must be sought, and, if possible, such effect given to it as a whole, as to cause it to furnish the remedies and reliefs intended, without unnecessary inconvenience. Bac. Ab., (Bouv. Ed.) p. 246; People v. Ins. Co., 15 Johns. 358, 380; Fanny v. State, 6 Mo. 142; 9 Bac. Ab., (Bouv. Ed.) 238; Neenan v. Smith, 50 Mo. 525; U. S. v. Fisher, 2 Cranch 358, 386; Phillips' Mechanics' Lien, p. 22; Oster v. Rabeneau, 46 Mo. 595; Putnam v. Ross, 46 Mo. 337. If, in filing a lien against a railroad, it is absolutely necessary to include all of its road-bed, the same rule of construction would require the lien to include its “station houses, depots, bridges, rolling-stock,” etc. The absolute absence of the necessity for such a proceeding in every case, as well as the apparent hardship of it to both parties in a large majority of cases, would forbid the court to give it such a construction. The act is susceptible of one more reasonable and less inconvenient. Canal Co. v. Gordon, 6 Wall. 561.

Wells H. Blodgett for respondent.

A lien cannot be enforced against a section or portion of a railroad. Cox v. R. R. Co., 44 Cal. 18. A railroad, if made subject to execution sale at all, cannot be cut up into parcels and sold at different sales. Such sales would defeat the purposes of the law in reference to such enterprises. Macon, etc., R. R. Co. v. Parker, 9 Ga. 377; Rorer on Judicial Sales, § 1070, p. 345; Winchester v. Turnpike Road Co., 5 B. Mon. 1; Dunn v. R. R. Co., 24 Mo. 493. The statute under which this action was instituted, requires the lien to be filed against the whole road, not against a particular section or portion of it. It provides that the lien shall attach to the road-bed, etc., of such railroad; that the lien may be filed in any county through which the railroad may run; the account filed must state the name of the railroad against which the lien is intended to apply; the circuit clerk is required to file copies of all liens and judgments in the office of the secretary of State, and the secretary is required to keep an abstract book so arranged and indexed as to show the names of all parties claiming liens, the amount claimed by each, and the railroad to which the same applies. Acts 1873, p. 59. A railroad with its depots, bridges and other appurtenances, is no less an entirety than a dwelling-house, with its kitchen, its chimneys and its door-steps; and yet, no one has ever supposed that a mechanic's lien could be enforced against the door-steps or chimneys of a dwelling-house, or that they could be sold and removed, to the utter destruction of the whole property.

HOUGH, J.

This was a suit to enforce a lien against the road-bed and the buildings, erections and improvements on the defendant's railroad, from a point on the line of said road known as Ferguson Station, in St. Louis county, to Rock Springs in said county, for lumber alleged to have been furnished to and used by defendant's contractor, in the construction of defendant's road-bed between the points above mentioned. It is admitted by the pleadings that the defendant owned and operated a railway extending from St. Louis to Kansas City, and from Moberly, in Randolph county, to the Iowa state line, and that it constructed a branch, or extension of its road, from a point on its main line known as Ferguson Station, to the union depot in the city of St. Louis, and that the lien was filed against a portion only of said branch.

The only question which it is necessary for us to determine is, whether, under the act of March 21st, 1873, now embodied in sections 3200 to 3216 of the Revised Statutes, giving liens upon railroads for labor and materials furnished for their construction, a lien can be filed against that portion of the road, only, for which the labor and materials were furnished. Section 3200 is as follows: “All persons who shall do any work or labor in constructing or improving the road-bed, rolling-stock, station-houses, depots, bridges or culverts, of any railroad company incorporated under the laws of this State, or owning or operating a railroad within this State, and all persons who shall furnish ties, fuel, bridges or materials to such railroad company, shall have, for the work done and labor performed, and for...