Morganton Hardware Co v. Morganton Graded Sch.

• Decision Date: 19 May 1909
• Citation: Morganton Hardware Co v. Morganton Graded Sch., 134 Am. St Rep. 953, 64 S.E. 764, 150 N. C. 680 (N.C. 1909)
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court
• Parties: MORGANTON HARDWARE CO. et al. v. MORGANTON GRADED SCHOOL et al.

64 S.E. 764

(150 N. C. 680)

MORGANTON HARDWARE CO. et al.

v.MORGANTON GRADED SCHOOL et al.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

May 19, 1909.

Mechanics' Liens (§ 13^*) — Property Subject to Lien—Public Property.

A public school building, title to which is vested in a board of trustees, is not subject to a mechanic's lien for material furnished for its construction; the statute not showing an intention to extend the lien to public property.

[Ed. Note.—For other cases, seeMechanics' Liens, Cent. Dig. § 15;Dec. Dig. § 13.*]

Appeal from Superior Court, Burke County; Ferguson, Judge.

Action by the Morganton Hardware Company and others against the Morganton Graded School and others.From a judgment for plaintiffs, defendants appeal.Reversed.

Avery & Ervin, for appellants.

Riddle & Huffman, S. J. Ervin, and J. T. Perkins, for appellees.

WALKER, J.The plaintiffs furnished materials to L. W. Cooper, who had contracted to build a schoolhouse for the defendant the Morganton graded school, and they filed and now claim a lien upon the building for the materials so furnished.

The only question for our consideration is whether a public school building is subject to a statutory lien for materials furnished for its construction.This question we must answer in the negative, if we apply the principle declared in former decisions of this court, and are governed by the great weight of authority iu other jurisdictions.Snow v. Commissioners, 112 N. C. 336, 17 S. E. 176;Gastonia v. Engineering Co., 131 N. C. 368; 42 S. E. 857.In 27 Cyc. p. 25, it is said that such a lien does not attach to public school buildings, and many authorities are cited in the notes to sustain the proposition.In Neal v. Trustees, 121 Ga. 208, 48 S. E. 978, it is said: "As a general rule, in the absence of some expression in the statute making it evident that the Legislature intended it so to apply, a mechanic's lien statute will not be construed to give a lien upon public buildings or other public property devoted to public use.Thus a lien cannot be acquired or enforced against a public school building or the lot on which it is situated, a courthouse, a city hall, a public bridge which is part of a public highway, or the waterworks of a municipality.In some cases the reason given for this rule is that to hold otherwise would be contrary to public policy, while in others the rule has been considered to be based upon the fact that the ordinary methods provided by statute for the enforcement of the lien cannot be pursued against public property, and hence, there being no mode of enforcing the lien, it cannot exist; and it has also been held that the provisions of the mechanic's lien law could not be applied to public school buildings because the relation sustained by a school district to the school property was not that of owner within the meaning of the statute, and hence a contract with the district could not give rise to the lien"—citing 20 Am. & Eng. Enc. 295, 296.The counsel admitted that, as a general rule, a public building is not the subject of a lien for work done or materials furnished in the absence of some expression in the statute showing the intention of the Legislature to be otherwise; but they contended that the rule did not apply when the title to the property is vested in a board of trustees.This contention is fully answered in the case of Neal v. Trustees, just cited and especially in Trustees v....