Phelan v. Terry
| Decision Date | 05 July 1907 |
| Docket Number | 15,195 - (117) |
| Citation | 112 N.W. 872,101 Minn. 454 |
| Parties | JOHN PHELAN v. EDMUND TERRY and Others |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Action in the district court for Traverse county to recover possession of a quantity of grain. The case was tried before Flaherty, J., who granted a motion to dismiss the action. From an order denying a motion for a new trial, plaintiff appealed. Reversed.
Thresher's Lien -- Constitution.
Section 3546, R.L. 1905, creating and defining a thresher's lien held a valid legislative enactment, and not obnoxious to either the state or the federal constitution.
Foreclosure of Lien -- Replevin.
The lien claimant, having duly perfected his lien in accordance with the provisions of the statute to enable him to foreclose the same, may maintain claim and delivery to recover the possession of the grain covered thereby against a person wrongfully detaining it from him.
Foreclosure of Lien.
The rules and principles of law applicable to the foreclosure of chattel mortgages apply to proceedings to foreclose a thresher's lien.
Lien Statement.
Certain alleged defects in the lien statement in this case considered, and held not fatal to its validity.
F. W Murphy, for appellant.
Steidl & Houston, for respondents.
Action in claim and delivery, which was dismissed on the trial on the ground that the complaint failed to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. Plaintiff appealed from an order denying a new trial.
The action was commenced to recover the possession of certain grain -- wheat, oats, barley and flax -- of which plaintiff claimed the right of possession for the purpose of foreclosing a thresher's lien perfected by him under section 3546, R.L. 1905.
The complaint alleges, in substance, that during the time stated therein plaintiff was the owner of a complete threshing outfit, in the operation of which he employed and furnished all necessary men and teams; that between the 29th of September, 1906, and the 3d of October of the same year, at the special instance and request of defendants, he threshed for them the grain in question, which was raised on the East half of section 35, township 126, range 47, in Traverse county. The number of bushels of grain so threshed is stated, and that the work was performed at the agreed compensation of $82.50 per day, that amount covering pay for all help necessary in doing the work, including men and teams, no part of which has ever been paid; that on the 9th day of October, 1906, plaintiff prepared and filed in the office of the town clerk in the town of Walls, said county, the town wherein the plaintiff and defendants reside, and did reside at the time the threshing was done, and the town wherein the threshing was done, a duly verified claim of lien, as provided by section 3547, R.L. 1905, a copy of which is attached to and made a part of the complaint. The complaint further alleges that the lien is still in full force and effect, and that defendants wrongfully and unlawfully detain from plaintiff the grain threshed, and refuse to deliver the same or any part thereof to him, and that possession of the same has been duly demanded. The demand for judgment is that plaintiff have and recover possession of the property, or, if possession cannot be had, $550, the value thereof.
Two of the defendants answered, each answer containing a general denial, and in addition thereto an admission that plaintiff threshed the grain in question; but coupled therewith is a denial that the threshing was done under or pursuant to any contract or agreement with the answering defendants. They each allege that the value of plaintiff's services in threshing the grain was not greater than the sum of $150. It appears from the answer of one of the defendants that defendant Terry, who did not answer, occupied the land as a tenant, raised the crop as such, and that the threshing was done by plaintiff under a contract or agreement with him. When the cause came on for trial, defendants' counsel objected to the admission of any evidence on the ground that the complaint failed to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. The court sustained the objection, and, on defendants' motion, dismissed the action. These rulings are the only errors assigned on this appeal.
The precise ground upon which the court based its ruling is not made clear by the record. Whether the learned trial judge was of the opinion that an action in claim and delivery could not be maintained in support of a thresher's lien, or whether he considered the statute invalid, or the lien for some reason defective, we are not advised. But an examination of the record leads to the conclusion that the court was in error, whatever may have been the precise ground of its decision. That the complaint sufficiently alleges the facts and states a cause of action, if claim and delivery may be maintained and plaintiff has a valid lien, we have no doubt.
So we turn our attention first to the question whether plaintiff has a valid lien upon the grain. This involves the construction of the statute under which the lien is claimed and the sufficiency of the lien statement. Section 3546, R.L. 1905, provides that any person owning or operating a threshing machine shall have a lien on the grain threshed therewith for the price or value of his labor, and that the lien shall be preferred to all other liens or incumbrances upon the grain threshed, except for seed from which the same was grown. Section 3547 provides for the preservation and enforcement of the lien so given, and requires the lien claimant to file with the town clerk of the town in which the work was done a verified statement of the amount and kinds of grain threshed, the time and place of doing the same, giving the first and last days thereof, the rate per bushel, and the total charge, the amount paid thereon, if any, and the balance claimed to be due. Then follow provisions authorizing a seizure and sale of enough of the grain threshed to satisfy the lien with costs and expenses. Though the statute is not so full and complete as it might have been made, fairly construed it creates and defines a thresher's lien with sufficient definiteness and certainty, and if its various provisions be complied with, and be not unconstitutional, the lien becomes effective and may be enforced through appropriate proceedings. Nothing further need be said with reference to the statute at this time, and we proceed to the specific points made by defendants.
1. It is contended that the lien statement upon which plaintiff relies is defective in several respects. The statement is attached to the complaint, but it is unnecessary to set it out at length in this opinion. It is sufficient to refer to the specific...
To continue reading
Request your trial