Peaceable Creek Coal Co. v. Jackson

Decision Date08 March 1910
Docket NumberCase Number: 678
PartiesPEACEABLE CREEK COAL CO. et al. v. JACKSON et al.
CourtOklahoma Supreme Court
Syllabus

¶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.

WILLIAMS, J.

¶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:

"The first question presented is whether or not the coal mine, as set forth and described in the intervention and exhibits, is such an improvement upon land as comes within the meaning of the statute just quoted, it being contended on one side that the word 'improvement' in the statute must be limited in its meaning to buildings and things ejusdem generis; in other words, that an improvement upon land which is not in the nature of a building is not an improvement within the meaning of the statute. On the other hand, it is claimed that, in the proper construction of the statute, the word 'improvement' is not at all limited by the word 'building' preceding it, but that it is to be taken as extending the class of construction which may be the subject of a lien, rather than limiting such class. * * * If this word 'improvement' is given its ordinary meaning, the new law is extended to cover the construction of coal and iron mines, and thereby great help is given to the owners of mineral lands to develop their property, and such development increases the general prosperity of the state. There was no reason why capital and labor put into the coal and iron industries should not be encouraged and protected, as well as in other works and improvements. A going coal mine is not merely a hole in the ground. It is made up of shafts, drifts, slopes, engines, machinery, platforms, cars, tracks, scales, etc.; and, taken as a thing, if not a building, it is unquestionably an improvement, and an improvement on land. Taking into consideration the importance and condition of the mines and mining interests of the state in 1876, it is a fair presumption that the legislative intention in the act of 1876 was mainly to extend the lien of mechanics and materialmen for work and material so as to aid in the development of the state's mineral resources. However this may be, it clearly appears to me that the coal mine described in the intervention and exhibits is an improvement, within the meaning of the terms used in section 3018 of the Alabama Code, and that for material, fixtures, engine, boiler, or machinery furnished therefor, a lien results to materialmen on compliance with the requirements of the statute."

¶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:

"The statute recognizes that improvements meriting the protection of a lien may be made upon land otherwise than by building, but as they may occur in unforeseen variety, the scope of the term 'improvement' is left for determination in particular cases as they may arise. It is well known that a supply of water is often one of the most convenient and useful of all appurtenances to land. Its development by means of drilling and casing a well may greatly enhance the permanent value of the land. We, therefore, hold that a well, designed and made for a permanent supply of water, is an improvement upon land within the meaning of the statute referred to."

¶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:

"Any person who shall, under oral or written contract with the owner of any tract or piece of land perform labor, or furnish material for the erection, alteration or repair of any building, improvement, or structure thereon; or who shall furnish material or perform labor in putting up any fixtures, machinery in or attachment to, any such building, structure or improvements; or who shall plant any trees, vines, plants or hedge in or upon such land; or who shall build, alter, repair or furnish labor or material for building altering or repairing any fence or foot walk in or upon said land, or any sidewalk in any street abutting such land, shall have a lien upon the whole of said tract or piece of land, the buildings and appurtenances, but if a homestead the lien shall be good on not to exceed five acres in a square form on which the building material, fixtures or machinery are located, in the manner herein provided, for the amount due him for such labor, materials, fixtures or machinery. If the title to the land is not in the person with whom any such contract was made, but is leased and unimproved, the lien shall be allowed on the buildings and improvements on such land separately from the real estate."

¶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
8 cases
  • Armitage v. Bernheim
    • United States
    • Idaho Supreme Court
    • 24 Diciembre 1919
    ... ... 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
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • 5 Octubre 1943
    ... ... 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
    • United States
    • Oklahoma Supreme Court
    • 30 Abril 1929
    ...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.
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • 5 Octubre 1943
    ... ... 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; ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT