A. L. & B. F. Goss Co. v. Greenleaf

• Decision Date: 15 February 1904
• Citation: 57 A. 581,98 Me. 436
• Parties: A. L. & B. F. GOSS CO. v. GREENLEAF et al.
• Court: Maine Supreme Court

57 A. 581

98 Me. 436

A. L. & B. F. GOSS CO.

v. GREENLEAF et al.

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine.

Feb. 15, 1904.

(Official.)

Report from Supreme Judicial Court, Androscoggin County.

Action by the A. L. & E. F. Goss Company against John A. Greenleaf and others. Case reported, and lien on public library denied.

This was an action on the case to recover the sum of $838.23, with interest, for labor and materials furnished in the plumbing, heating, and gas-piping of the Carnegie Library in Lewiston, Me., by the A. L. & E. F. Goss Company, subcontractors therefor under Greenleaf & Doring, who were the contractors for the erection of said library building. The funds for its construction were furnished by Andrew Carnegie, and the lot upon which the building was erected was purchased by the city of Lewiston under the stipulation that Mr. Carneion of the building, provided the city of Lewigie was to furnish $50,000 for the constructston should purchase a lot and appropriate the sum of $5,000 annually for the maintenance and increase of the library.

These conditions were accepted, and a building commission elected, authorized and empowered by concurrent vote of the city council as follows: "To proceed to build as soon as may be, upon the site selected therefor, the library for which Andrew Carnegie has devoted the sum of fifty thousand dollars, at a cost, however, not to exceed said sum of fifty thousand dollars, and to this end the commission may employ architects, adopt plans, make contracts for labor and materials and do all other things they deem reasonable and necessary to build, furnish, finish and finally complete said building, the expense of the same to be paid from the Carnegie fund."

In accordance with this vote, the commission selected an architect, and made a contract for the construction of the library building with Greenleaf & Doring; and, as a subcontractor under Greenleaf & Doring, the plaintiff furnished the labor and materials sued for. After these were furnished by the plaintiff, and after the building was finished, the payment of claims, among which was that of the plaintiff, was delayed by the commission until Greenleaf & Doring first assigned, and thereafter were adjudged bankrupts upon their own petition.

It was claimed that this fund specifically appropriated by Mr. Carnegie for the construction of the library building should go into the general fund, to be distributed among the entire credit list of Greenleaf & Doring, and that the building known as the "Carnegie Library" shall be constructed partially at least by a contribution from the plaintiff.

The defense urged was that this is a public building, and that, as a consequence, under the statutes of Maine, no mechanic's lien could attach thereto.

Other facts appear in the opinion.

Argued before WISWELL, C. J., and EMERY, STROUT, SAVAGE, POWERS, and PEABODY, JJ.

W. H. Newell and W. B. Skelton, for plaintiff.

Geo. C. Wing and Reuel W. Smith, for defendants.

Geo. S. McCarty, City Sol., for land and buildings.

EMERY, J. The city of Lewiston was authorized by the Legislature, in chapter 206, p. 428, Sp. Laws 1901, to acquire land, and erect a building thereon, to "be forever held by said city for the purpose of * * * maintaining a free public library in said Lewiston." Under this authority the city acquired a lot of land, and contracted with a firm of building contractors for the erection thereon of a suitable building for that purpose. The building was erected, but the contractors became adjudicated bankrupts, and were unable to pay the plaintiff for labor and materials furnished in the erection of the building. The plaintiff claims in this action that it has a lien on the building and land for the labor and materials so furnished, under the statute known as the "Mechanic's Lien Law" (Rev. St 1883, c. 91, § 30 et seq.). That statute imposes a lien for labor and materials furnished "In erecting, altering, moving or repairing a house, building or appurtenances, by virtue of a contract with or by consent of the owner, * * * [on the building] and on the land on which it stands, * * * to be enforced by attachment" After a Judgment sustaining a lien claim, the land and building are to be seized upon execution and sold, or levied upon by extent, as in other cases of Judgment and execution.

1. Assuming all the steps necessary to enforce the lien to have been taken, the first question presented is simply one of statute law — of statutory interpretation — viz.: In enacting the lien statute above quoted, did the Legislature intend it to apply to and include a building erected by a municipality, under legislative authority, to be forever held for the purpose of maintaining a free public library?

It is to be assumed that the Legislature, in framing statutes and settling their phraseology, does so with reference to established canons of statutory interpretation. One of the oldest and most universal of these canons is that the crown, the state, the people, the public, is not to be considered as within the purview of a statute, unless expressly named therein, however general and comprehensive the language. "The King is not bound by any statute if he is not expressly named to be so bound." Broom's Leg. Max. 57. "The most general words that can be devised [for example, any person or persons, bodies politic or corporate] affect not him [the King] in the least, if they may tend to restrain or diminish any of his rights or interests." Lord Coke, in the Magdalen College Case, 11 Coke, 74, quoted in Dollar Savings Bank v. U. S. 19 Wall. 239, 22 L. Ed. 80. The United States Supreme Court in that case, after quoting the above, went on to say: "It may be considered as settled that so much of the royal prerogative as belonged to the King in his capacity of parens patriæ, or universal trustee, enters as much into our political state as it does into the principles of the British Constitution." An illustration may be seen in Rev. St. 1883, c. 84, § 30. In that statute it is provided that "executions against a town shall be Issued against the goods and chattels of the inhabitants thereof, and against the real estate situated therein, whether owned by such town or not" This language is comprehensive, but we assume no one will contend that an execution creditor of the city of Augusta can levy his execution on the state house or courthouse therein. See, also, United States v. Herron, 20 Wall. 251, 22 L. Ed. 275; Cape Elizabeth v. Skillin, 79 Me. 593, 12 Atl. 543.

It would seem to be a necessary corollary that public buildings—buildings constructed by the state, or by a political subdivision of the state (as a county, city, or town), for public purposes only, and not for pecuniary profit—are not to be considered as included within a statute imposing a Hen on "a house or building," unless they are expressly named as included. Such seems to be the almost universal Judicial opinion. In Phillips on Mechanics' Liens, pp. 314, 315, it is stated: ...