Pacific Coast Pipe Co. v. Blaine County Irrigation Co., Ltd.

• Decision Date: 11 February 1920
• Citation: 187 P. 940,32 Idaho 705
• Parties: PACIFIC COAST PIPE COMPANY, a Corporation, Appellant, v. BLAINE COUNTY IRRIGATION COMPANY, LIMITED, and BLAINE COUNTY INVESTMENT COMPANY, Respondents
• Court: Idaho Supreme Court

187 P. 940

32 Idaho 705

PACIFIC COAST PIPE COMPANY, a Corporation, Appellant, v. BLAINE COUNTY IRRIGATION COMPANY, LIMITED, and BLAINE COUNTY INVESTMENT COMPANY, Respondents

Supreme Court of Idaho

February 11, 1920

MECHANICS' LIENS - CAREY ACT IRRIGATION SYSTEM - MORTGAGES - PRIORITY.

1. A lien for materials furnished, or labor performed in the construction of a Carey Act irrigation system extends only to such right, title and interest as the Carey Act company, at the instance of which the system was constructed, had therein at the time the lien attached.

2. The lien of a mortgage, by reference therein to property to be acquired by the mortgagor, is subject and subsequent to liens, if duly and properly made and filed, for labor performed and materials furnished in constructing and acquiring such property.

3. One performing labor on, or furnishing materials for, the construction of a section or ranch of an irrigation system may have a lien upon that portion of it for his compensation but if he elects to file his lien upon the entire system, he thereby makes his claim subsequent and subject to a prior mortgage thereon, properly recorded, or of which he had notice, within the time mentioned in C. S., sec. 7345.

[As to priority as between mechanic's lien and mortgage, see note in Ann.Cas. 1916B, 634]

APPEAL from the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, for Blaine County. Hon. James R. Bothwell, Judge.

Suits to foreclose liens. Decree fixing priorities from which one of the claimants appealed. Modified and affirmed.

Decree affirmed. Costs awarded to respondents.

Coffin & Coffin, for Appellant.

The right of the mortgagor construction company to have a Carey Act lien upon the irrigated lands to secure the cost of delivering pipe-line water ripened and was acquired only through the outlay or expenditure (furnishing of materials) of the plaintiff, and, under such circumstances, the plaintiff being, as the evidence clearly shows, entitled to a lien upon the interest of the mortgagor, the prior mortgage with an after-acquired property clause attaches only to the interest of the mortgagor subject to that lien. (Harris v. Youngstown Bridge Co., 90 F. 322, 33 C. C. A. 69; Bear Lake & R. Waterworks & Irr. Co. v. Garland, 164 U.S. 1, 17 S.Ct. 7, 41 L.Ed. 327, see, also, Rose's U.S Notes.)

Therefore the plaintiff is entitled to a lien upon the pipe-line, the water right connected therewith, an interest in the entire system sufficient to deliver the waters of Dry Creek to the settlers, and the right to have a lien upon the irrigated lands to secure the deferred payments on the water-right contracts to the extent of the amount of water delivered through the pipe.

P. E Cavaney, for Respondents.

Mechanic's lien claimants' liens are always subject to prior mortgages which are of record or of which they have knowledge at the time they commence to furnish their labor or material. (Nelson-Bennett Co. v. Twin Falls Land & W. Co., 14 Idaho 5, 93 P. 789; Smith v. Faris-Kesl Const. Co., 27 Idaho 407, 150 P. 25.)

The Idaho statute does not purport to grant a lien upon anything but the interest of the debtor in the specific structure or other improvements, together with the appurtenances and the real estate on which the same is situated, in the construction of which the labor or material of the claimant has been used. (Rev. Codes, secs. 5110-5113; Colorado Iron Works v. Rickenberg, 4 Idaho 705, 43 P. 681; Nelson-Bennett Co. v. Twin Falls Land & W. Co., supra.)

The appellant had the right to elect whether it would treat the pipe-line and canal extending from Dry to Wet Creek as a separate and independent construction and to file its lien upon that part of the property alone or to regard it as part of the entire irrigation project and claim a lien upon the whole. (Creer v. Cache Valley Canal Co., 4 Idaho 280, 95 Am. St. 63, 38 P. 653; Bear Lake & R. W. & Irr. Co. v. Garland, 164 U.S. 1, 17 S.Ct. 7, 41 L.Ed. 327, see, also, Rose's U.S. Notes.) By electing to claim a lien upon the entire system, appellant waived its right to a lien upon the specific property for the construction of which it furnished material. (State ex rel. John J. Ganahl Lumber Co. v. Drew, 43 Mo.App. 362.)

MORGAN, C. J. Rice and Budge, JJ., concur.

OPINION

MORGAN, C. J.

Action was commenced by appellant to foreclose a lien filed in Blaine county on August 5, 1912, upon the entire irrigation system of respondent, Blaine County Irrigation Company, Limited, hereinafter called the irrigation company, for money claimed to be due the former on account of materials sold by it to the latter and used in the construction of a pipe-line which forms a part of the system. Warren G. Swendsen commenced action to foreclose a lien, filed in Custer and Lemhi counties on August 10, 1912, upon a portion of the irrigation system located in those counties, for labor performed and assistance rendered by him in constructing the same. These actions were consolidated for trial in the district court.

Respondent Blaine County Investment Company, hereinafter called the investment company, filed an answer and cross-complaint wherein it was alleged that the irrigation company became and was the owner of the system in question pursuant to what is known as the Carey Act of Congress, and acts amendatory thereof, and the laws of Idaho relating to it; that on November 1, 1910, the last-mentioned corporation executed a mortgage in favor of Central Savings Trust Company and David Thornton, whereby it conveyed to them, in trust, in order to...