McGeorge v. Stanton-De Long Lumber Co.

• Decision Date: 19 February 1907
• Citation: 131 Wis. 7,110 N.W. 788
• Parties: MCGEORGE ET AL. v. STANTON-DE LONG LUMBER CO. ET AL.
• Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

131 Wis. 7

110 N.W. 788

MCGEORGE ET AL.

v.STANTON-DE LONG LUMBER CO. ET AL.

Supreme Court of Wisconsin.

Feb. 19, 1907.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Sawyer County; John K. Parish, Judge.

Action by Andrew W. McGeorge and others against the Stanton-De Long Lumber Company, a corporation, impleaded with John A. Keene. Judgment for defendant company, and plaintiffs appeal. Affirmed.

Action to recover on contract and to enforce a lien under section 3329, Rev. St. 1898.

The complaint was to the effect that plaintiffs, between certain specified dates, performed services for the defendant Keene of the value of $464.74, hauling lumber and timber at an agreed price per thousand feet, which lumber and timber belonged to the defendant Stanton-De Long Lumber Company; that no part of said sum has been paid and that plaintiffs have complied with all the statutory requisites to secure a lien for said sum on such lumber and timber, the various statutory steps to that end being appropriately alleged.

The lumber company answered putting in issue the allegation that timber was hauled by the plaintiffs and raising the question of whether the claim was lienable.

On the trial the evidence was uncontroverted that most of the manufactured product hauled by the plaintiffs was boards and the balance 4x4's, 6x6's, 6x8's and plank, no evidence being produced as to the amount of such stuff; that all the product was manufactured from saw logs at a small mill located about 14 miles from the village of Hayward in Sawyer county, Wis.; that part was piled in the mill yard and that plaintiffs hauled that and the balance, taking the latter from the tail of the mill, to the railroad station at said village of Hayward and placing the same on the right-of-way of the railway company at such station. The jury rendered a verdict in favor of the plaintiff for the amount of the claim as alleged, and rendered a directed verdict that plaintiff was not entitled to a lien therefor. Judgment was rendered accordingly from which this appeal was taken.F. L. McNamara, for appellants.

J. F. Riordan, for respondent.

MARSHALL, J. (after stating the facts).

The sole question presented in this case is: Was plaintiff entitled to a lien for his services in hauling the manufactured products from the sawmill to the village of Hayward, under section 3329, Rev. St. 1898, providing that “any person who shall do or perform any labor or services in cutting, hauling, running, felling, piling, driving,...