Mohr v. Clark

• Citation: 19 P. 28,3 Wash.Terr. 440
• Parties: MOHR v. CLARK ET AL.
• Decision Date: 28 January 1888
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Washington

19 P. 28

3 Wash.Terr. 440

MOHR v. CLARK ET AL.

Supreme Court of Territory of Washington

January 28, 1888

Appeal from Fourth district court.

Clark and Curtis instituted an action to foreclose a chattel mortgage on certain grain of H. F. Suksdorf, making H. W Knox, who claimed an interest therein, a party defendant. In this action C. W. Mohr intervened, claiming a lien on the grain for threshing, under Code Wash. T. § 1975. On the trial the intervenor was nonsuited, and from this judgment he appeals.

Allen, Munter & Allen, for appellant.

J. F. Parks, for appellees.

ALLYN J.

October 21, 1886, Clark & Curtis began a suit to foreclose a chattel mortgage on certain grain given by the defendant H. F Suksdorf. Defendant Knox was joined as claiming an interest in the grain. October 27, 1886, intervenor, appellant herein began a suit against said H. F. Suksdorf and one F. W Suksdorf, an alleged partner, to recover some $800 for threshing the mortgaged grain, asserting a lien, under section 1975 of the Code, for such threshing. On November 16, 1886, appellant intervened in the principal action of Clark & Curtis v. Suksdorf & Knox to protect his lien. Defendant answered, setting up a waiver of lien and payment. Subsequently they filed amended answers, setting up the additional defense that the threshing was done by means of intervenor's machinery, teams, and servants, and was not done by his personal labor. Replies were filed, denying the waiver and payment. On the trial intervenor was nonsuited on the ground that the threshing was not done by his personal labor, but by means of his machines, teams, and servants.

A finding of facts is stipulated for a decision herein upon the question "whether a man is entitled to a lien for such work done by his servants, teams, etc., and not by his personal labor." It being further stipulated "that said intervenor was actually present during said threshing, and directed the same, and assisted therein but never claimed or filed any lien for his personal services." The decision of this question depends upon the construction to be given section 1975 of the Code, reading as follows: "Any person who shall do labor upon any farm or land, in tilling the same, or in sowing or harvesting or laboring upon, or securing, or assisting in securing, or housing, any crop or crops sown or raised thereon during the year in which said work or labor was done, such person has a lien upon all such crop or crops as shall have been raised upon all or any of said land for said work or labor." It is said that, as lien laws are required to be liberally construed, (section 1981,) "any person who shall do labor upon any farm," etc., can be extended to cover those who labor through others, i. e., by employing laborers, as in this case. The object and purpose of the lien law is apparent. It was intended to secure and protect personal earnings of laborers beyond question, and whether a man, because he may be doing labor, yet in the same labor is employing other laborers, and is thus also an employer or contractor, can come within the scope of this act is a very important question. So far as he may actually labor, he may come within the beneficent provisions of this law, but so far as his labor consists in looking after his laborers, and supervising his contract, this comes rather in the...