Pennsylvania and Delaware Railroad Co.. v. Leuffer

• Decision Date: 07 May 1877
• Citation: 84 Pa. 168
• Parties: The Pennsylvania and Delaware Railroad Co., with notice, & c., v. Leuffer.
• Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

84 Pa. 168

The Pennsylvania and Delaware Railroad Co., with notice, & c., v. Leuffer.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

May 7, 1877

March 22, 1877

A civil engineer is not a " laborer" or " workman" within the meaning of the resolution of 21st January 1843, and its supplement, the Act of 4th April 1862 and is not entitled to the lien provided thereby upon the property of a railroad, for the value of his services rendered in its construction.

Before AGNEW, C. J., MERCUR, GORDON, PAXSON, WOODWARD and STERRETT JJ.

SHARSWOOD J., absent.

Error to the Common Pleas of Chester county: Of July Term 1876, No. 85.

This was a scire facias issued by George W. Leuffer against the Pennsylvania and Delaware Railroad Company, with notice to the Pennsylvania Railroad Company. The plaintiff was a civil engineer, and as such rendered services to the first above-mentioned road in the course of its construction. He brought suit for the value of these services and recovered a judgment for $1919.13, upon which this scire facias issued. The only question was whether a civil engineer was a " laborer" or " workman" within the meaning of the resolution of 21st January 1843, Pamph. L. 367, Purd Dig. 90, pl. 1, which declares, " It shall not be lawful for any company incorporated by the laws of this Commonwealth, and empowered to construct, make and manage any railroad, canal or other public internal improvement while the debts and liabilities, or any part thereof incurred by the said company to contractors, laborers and workmen employed in the construction or repairs of said improvement remain unpaid, to execute a general or partial assignment conveyance, mortgage or other transfer of the real or personal estate of the said company, so as to defeat, postpone, endanger or delay their said creditors, without the written assent of the said creditors first had and obtained; and any such assignment, conveyance, mortgage or transfer shall be deemed fraudulent, null and void, as against any such contractors, laborers and workmen, creditors as aforesaid:" and of the Act of 4th April 1865, Pamph. L. 235, Purd. Dig. 91, which provides: " Whereas, it frequently happens that incorporated companies, by assignment, conveyance, mortgage or other transfer, divest themselves of their real and personal estate, in contravention of the provisions of the resolution of January 21st 1843: therefore, Be it enacted, that whenever any incorporated company, subject to the provisions of the above resolution, shall divest themselves of their real or personal estate, contrary to the provisions of the said resolution, it shall and may be lawful for any contractor, laborer or workman employed in the construction or repair of the improvements of the said company, having obtained judgment against the said company, to issue a scire facias upon said judgment, with notice to any person, or to any incorporated company, claiming to hold or own said real or personal estate, to be served in the same manner as a summons, upon the defendant, if it can be found in the county, and upon the person or persons, or incorporated company, claiming to hold or own such real estate; and if the defendant cannot be found, then upon the return of one nihil and service as aforesaid, on the person or persons, or company claiming to hold or own as aforesaid, the case to proceed as in other cases of scire facias on judgment against terre tenants."

The case, by agreement, was submitted without the intervention of a jury, and the court, Butler, P. J., filed an opinion as follows:--

" This question, in my judgment, must be determined in the plaintiff's favor.

A civil engineer, employed in the construction of a railroad, is, I think, within both the letter and spirit of the statute. ‘ Laborer’ and ‘ workman’ are synonymous terms. An engineer (thus employed) is a workman; he works on the ground continually, from the commencement to the completion of the road. And his work is physical as well as mental. He makes diagrams and plans, ascertains and marks the lines and grades, and directs and superintends. It is skilled work. But so is that of the mechanic who builds the bridges, and whether he be the master, who simply directs, or the man who uses the tools, it is not doubted that he is within the statute.

The object of the legislature was to give those whose skill and labor create the structure, a special hold upon it for compensation. The language should, therefore, receive a reasonable construction, with a view to this object. While it should not be strained, it should not be confined to the narrowest sense in which it might be understood. The Act of June 1836, relating to mechanics and others employed in erecting buildings, had a similar object; and while the language employed there is less comprehensive, it is held to embrace the services of an architect who draws plans for and superintends the construction of a building. The language of the court in Bank v. Gries, 11 Casey 423, where this is decided, is quite as applicable to the case before us. Conant v. Van Schaick, 24 Barb. 99, shows that the courts in New York have taken the same view of a similar statute there.

Judgment must for these reasons be entered for the plaintiff."

This judgment was the error assigned.

Wm. Darlington, for plaintiff in error.--A laborer is one who labors in a toilsome occupation; a man who does work that requires little skill as distinguished from an artisan. A workman is a man employed in labor, whether in tillage or manufactures. A civil engineer is not within the meaning of either of these definitions. The obvious intent of the...