Mining Company v. Cullins
| Decision Date | 01 October 1881 |
| Citation | 26 L.Ed. 704,104 U.S. 176 |
| Parties | MINING COMPANY v. CULLINS |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
ERROR to the Supreme Court of the Territory of Utah.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
Mr. Walter H. Smith for the plaintiff in error.
Mr. Samuel Shellabarger and Mr. Jeremiah M. Wilson, contra.
Cullins brought suit against the Flagstaff Silver Mining Company of Utah, in a district court of the Territory of Utah, to recover wages alleged to be due to him from the company for services rendered, and to subject its property to a lien therefor which he claimed attached by virtue of the statute of the Territory. The statute declared as follows:——
Compiled Laws of Utah, sect. 1221.
The answer of the company denied that anything save a small balance was due, and that the statute gave him a lien on its property therefor.
The case was submitted to the court upon the issues of fact as well as of law.
The court found that the company, a corporation organized under the laws of Great Britain, was, at the time the services were rendered, the owner of and engaged in working a mine called the Flagstaff Mine, situate in that Territory, and that one J. N. H. Patrick was the general agent and manager of the company's mining and smelting business in America; 'that on or about the fourteenth day of December, 1873, the said company, by said J. N. H. Patrick, its agent, for that purpose duly authorized, employed the plaintiff for an indefinite time thereafter to direct the work in its said mine, and with authority to employ and discharge miners, and procure and purchase supplies for working said mine; that it was the duty of the plaintiff, by virtue of said employment, to plan, oversee, and direct the work in said mine, direct the shipping of ore, and generally to control and direct the actual working and development of the mine; that the plaintiff, while in the employment of said company, performed said duties, and in the performance thereof did some manual labor;' and that, at the commencement of the suit, there was due to the plaintiff from the mining company $1,530 for wages earned by him under said employment. The court gave judgment for that sum, and declared it to be a lien upon the mine.
From this judgment an appeal was taken to the Supreme Court of the Territory, by which it was affirmed.
The company prosecutes this writ of error, and alleges that the courts below erred in declaring the judgment in favor of Cullins to be a lien on the mine. The precise question presented is, whether his services for the company were such 'work and labor' as under the statute entitled him to a lien therefor upon the mine.
Statutes giving liens to laborers and mechanics for their work and labor are to be liberally construed. Davis v. Alvord, 94 U. S. 545. The finding of the District Court makes clear the character of the services rendered by the defendant in error. He was not the general agent of the mining business of the plaintiff in error. That office was filled by Patrick. He was not a contractor. His services were not of a professional character, such as those of a mining engineer. He was the overseer and foreman of the body of miners who performed manual labor upon the mine. He planned and personally superintended and directed the work, with a view to develop the mine and make it a successful venture. His duties were similar to those of the foreman of a gang of track hands upon a railroad, or of a force of mechanics engaged in building a house. Such duties are very different from those which belong to the general superintendent of a railroad, or the contractor for erecting a house. Their performance may well be called work and labor; they require the personal attention and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Smith v. Mosier
... ... said Mosier & Summers as principals, and the Empire State ... Surety Company as surety, on or about the 21st day of ... November, 1903, duly executed and delivered their bond ... who profit by the contribution of such labor or materials ... Mining Co. v. Cullens, 104 U.S. 176, 177, 26 L.Ed ... 704. And the rule which permits a surety to stand ... ...
-
Little Rock, Hot Springs & Texas Railway Company v. Spencer
...413; 27 Mo. 39; 49 Ga. 511; 3 Wash. Terr. 444; 14 How. 434, 444; 39 Mich. 594, 595; 49 Wisc. 169; 27 Mo. 39; 12 Mont. 344; 23 Ark. 327; 104 U.S. 176. The statute, even we grant a strict construction, must be so construed as not to render meaningless the words that are found in it. 11 Ark. 4......
-
White v. Constitution Mining & Milling Co.
...Laws, sec. 1221) one who shall do work 'upon any mine shall be entitled,' etc. In a case founded upon this statute ( Flagstaff Silver Min. Co. v. Cullins, 104 U.S. 176 the court says: 'It is somewhat to draw the line between the kind of work and labor which is entitled to a lien and that wh......
-
Price v. HL COBLE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY
...where the superintendent did some manual labor in Bankers' Surety Co. v. Maxwell (C.C.A.) 222 F. 797. See, also Flagstaff Silver Mining Co. v. Cullins, 104 U.S. 176, 26 L.Ed. 704; Massachusetts Bonding Co. v. Steel (Tex.Civ. App.) 293 S.W. 647; Continental Bank v. North Platte Co. (C.C.A.) ......