Peaceable Creek Coal Co. v. Jackson
Decision Date | 08 March 1910 |
Docket Number | Case Number: 678 |
Parties | PEACEABLE CREEK COAL CO. et al. v. JACKSON et al. |
Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
¶0 1. MINES AND MINERALS--"Improvement"--Mechanics' Lien. A coal mine is an improvement within the meaning of section 4817, Wilson's Rev. & Ann. St. 1903 (section 6751, Comp. Laws Okla., 1909).
2. MINES AND MINERALS-- Mechanics' Liens--Necessity of Filing. As between a lienholder and the owner of the realty which has been improved and intervening creditors whose claims arose prior to the furnishing of the material or the performing of the labor for which the lien is sought, the realty and improvement thereon being in the hands of a receiver, and all of the parties in interest being brought into the district court in such action within four months after the date upon which the material was last furnished or labor last performed under the contract, the, same will be deemed a sufficient compliance with the provisions of section 6152 of the Compiled Laws of Oklahoma of 1909, without otherwise filing, within the required period of four months in the office of the district clerk, an ex parte statement as prescribed by said section.
Error from District Court, Pittsburg County; P. B. Cole, Judge.
Action by Andrew Jackson and others against the Peaceable Creek Coal Company and others. From the judgment, defendants bring error. Modified and affirmed.
Boyd & Moore, Brewer & Andrews, F. H. Kellogg, and Clayton & Clayton, for plaintiffs in error.
Eubanks & Elder, for defendants in error.
Copies of briefs did not reach the reporter.
¶1 1. The first question for determination is as to the right of certain plaintiffs and interveners to have recognized and enforced, by virtue of sections 4817, 4818 (sections 6151, 6152, Comp. Laws Okla. 1909) Wilson's Rev. & Ann. St. 1903, a claim for a lien on a coal mine, machinery, equipment, and fixtures thereof. Section 3018 of the Code of Alabama of 1886 provides:
"Every mechanic or other person who shall do or perform any work or labor upon, or furnish any material, fixtures, engine, boiler or machinery, for any building or improvement on land, or for repairing the same, under or by virtue of any contract with the owner or proprietor thereof, or his agent, trustee, contractor or subcontractor, upon complying with the provisions of this chapter shall have a lien therefor on such building or improvement and on the land on which the same is situated," etc.
¶2 In the case of Central Trust Co. of New York v. Sheffield & Birmingham Coal, Iron & R. Co., Watt Mining Car Wheel Co., Intervener (C. C.) 42 F. 106, 9 L. R. A. 67, the Alabama statute was construed by Circuit Judge Pardee, wherein he said:
¶3 In the case of Bates v. Harte, 124 Ala. 427, 26 So. 898, 82 Am. St. Rep. 186, section 2723 of the Code of 1896, which is identical with section 3018 of the Code of 1886, was construed, wherein the court said:
¶4 The case of Eufaula Water Company v. Addyston Pipe & Steel Company, 89 Ala. 552, 8 So. 25, was an action brought to recover on an account for "piping" furnished by plaintiff to defendant under contract, for use in the construction of its works in Eufaula, and to have a lien, as for materials supplied, declared and enforced against a certain one-acre lot belonging to the defendant, situated just beyond the corporate limits of said city. This lot was the situs of defendant's pumping station, and on it were erected and placed buildings and machinery essential to forcing water into defendant's standpipe or reservoir--a half-mile distant--whence it was supplied, through a system of pipes, to the city and its inhabitants. The piping supplied by the plaintiff was used in making the conduit between the pumping station and the reservoir, a distance of about 3,000 feet, and extended from a point 25 feet within the lot in question, and outside of the buildings thereon, to the reservoir, being for its whole length, except said 25 feet, on land which did not belong to defendant, but in which the water company had an easement for this purpose only. Judgment for the amount in suit went for the plaintiff, and to this no objection was made, or exception reserved. The case was presented on appeal solely on exceptions to the court's general charge in favor of the plaintiff, and its refusal to give the general charge for the defendant, as to whether a lien existed on the one acre in question and the buildings thereon. The court said:
"We do not doubt that the laying of pipe on the lot of land, for the purpose shown by this record, is an 'improvement' within the meaning of Code (section 3018), nor that the value of pipe furnished for such a purpose might ordinarily be charged on the land, under the law which provides a lien for mechanics and materialmen."
¶5 Section 6151, supra, is more comprehensive than the Alabama statute, in that it provides that:
¶6 Every conceivable improvement in the constructing of a building, structure or planting of trees, vines, plants, or hedges, building or alteration in fences or footwalk or sidewalk, is provided for, and the general word "improvement" cannot be reasonably construed to have been used with the limitation in its meaning to buildings and things ejusdem generis. Said section being considered in connection with its general scope of application, it is reasonably clear that the word, "improvement" was used in its ordinary and general sense or acceptation, and includes any and every character of improvement upon realty. We accordingly conclude that the term "improvement," as used in section 6151, Comp. Laws Okla. 1909, includes a coal mine or a coal mining plant, comprising mine openings, with equipment and slopes from which entries and rooms have been turned, etc., coal being mined therefrom.
¶7 2. May such a lien be recognized and enforced without the provisions of ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Armitage v. Bernheim
... ... Gallagher, 20 Ind.App. 224, 67 ... Am. St. 250, 50 N.E. 485; Peaceable Creek Coal Co. v ... Jackson, 26 Okla. 1, Ann. Cas. 1912B, 1, 108 P ... ...
-
Arthur Morgan Trucking Co. v. Shartzer
... ... 391, 101 A. 764; Ward v. Crane, 118 Cal ... 676, 50 P. 839; Peaceable Creek Coal Co. v. Jackson, ... 26 Okla. 1, 108 P. 409; 63 A. L. R. 1250, ... ...
-
Sutherland Lumber Co. v. Gale
...claim in addition thereto under tbe holding of this court in the case of Key v. Hill, 93 Okla. 64, 219 P. 308, and Peaceable Creek Coal Co. v. Jackson, 26 Okla. 1, 108 P. 409, but it failed to file either its action or lien statement within the period prescribed by section 7463, C. O. S. 19......
-
Morgan Trucking Co. v. Shartzer et al.
... ... 391, 101 Atl. 764; Ward v. Crane, 118 Cal. 676, 50 Pac. 839; Peaceable Creek Coal Co. v. Jackson, 26 Okla. 1, 108 Pac. 409; 63 A.L.R. 1250, note; ... ...