Phillips v. Snowden Placer Co.

• Decision Date: 09 November 1916
• Docket Number: 2213.
• Citation: Phillips v. Snowden Placer Co., 40 Nev. 66, 160 P. 786 (Nev. 1916)
• Parties: PHILLIPS (DAHLSTROM ET AL., INTERVENERS) v. SNOWDEN PLACER CO. ET AL.
• Court: Nevada Supreme Court

160 P. 786

40 Nev. 66

PHILLIPS (DAHLSTROM ET AL., INTERVENERS) v. SNOWDEN PLACER CO. ET AL.

No. 2213.

Supreme Court of Nevada

November 9, 1916

Appeal from District Court, Nye County; Mark R. Averill, Judge.

Action to foreclose a mechanic's lien by George A. Phillips against the Snowden Placer Company and others, in which Charles O. Dahlstrom and Louie Amedeo, lienholders, were permitted to intervene.Judgment in the district court in a trial de novo on appeal from a justice's court, in favor of the plaintiff and the interveners.Motion for new trial denied, and defendants appeal.Modified and affirmed.

Coleman J., dissenting in part.

This case involves the foreclosure of a mechanic's lien in the sum of $200 claimed by the plaintiff, and a similar lien for the sum of $260 claimed by Louie Amedeo, also a similar lien for $255 claimed by Charles O. Dahlstrom; the liens being respectively claimed against the Black Cat mining claim situate in Manhattan mining district, Nye county, Nev.

The facts, as shown in the record, disclose that the appellants Wilson and Wilson were the owners of the Black Cat mining claim, and that they leased the claim to the Snowden Placer Company; that the Snowden Placer Company operated the ground by placer mining, and in the course of such operations employed the plaintiff, Phillips, and the interveners, Amedeo and Dahlstrom, to perform work upon the ground.The Snowden Placer Company having failed to pay the plaintiff and interveners the respective sums claimed by them, a lien was filed by plaintiff, and the liens of the interveners, Amedeo and Dahlstrom, were filed for record on the same day.

Subsequently suit was commenced in the justice court of Manhattan township to foreclose the lien of Phillips, in which suit the justice court made an order on November 1, 1913, that the said Amedeo and Dahlstrom be permitted to intervene, and such intervention was thereupon had.The Snowden Placer Company made no appearance.The defendants Wilson and Wilson appeared and filed their answer, alleging that they were the owners of the Black Cat mining claim; that the mining operations conducted thereon, according to their information and knowledge, were conducted by one R. T. Ashley; and that they had no knowledge of mining operations conducted on said claim by the Snowden Placer Company.

A trial was had in the justice court before a jury, and resulted in a disagreement, and thereupon the trial of the cause was set and a jury was again had, and a verdict was returned in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendants Wilson and Wilson to the extent of their interest as owners of the mining claim described in the complaint, and a judgment was entered in favor of Phillips for $200, with interest at 7 per cent. per annum from October 9, 1913, with costs of suit, and $3 for filing lien claim, also for the sum of $260 in favor of Amedeo, intervener, together with $3 cost of filing lien claim, also for the sum of $255 in favor of Charles O Dahlstrom, intervener, together with $3 cost of filing lien claim, and $75 attorney's fee allowed by the justice court.

An appeal was thereupon taken from the justice court to the district court, and the trial was had, and the district court ordered that judgment be entered in favor of plaintiff in the sum of $195, with $50 attorney's fee; for the intervener Amedeo, $250, and $60 attorney's fee; for the intervener Dahlstrom, $250, and $60 attorney's fee.From the judgment, and from an order denying a motion for a new trial an appeal has been taken to this court.

H. R. Cooke, of Tonopah, for appellants.

H. H. Atkinson, of Tonopah, for respondents.

NORCROSS C.J.

After two trials in the justice court and a trial de novo in the district court on appeal from the judgment of the justice's court, the question of the jurisdiction of the justice's court to try the case originally, and of the district court to try the case as on appeal, is raised for the first time on appeal to this court.The question, however, is one of great importance, not only to the parties to the present action, but because it goes to a matter of procedure based on the organic law of the state.

Section 8 of article 6 of the state Constitution, in part, reads:

"The Legislature shall determine the number of justices of the peace to be elected in each city and township of the state, and shall fix by law, their powers, duties and responsibilities: Provided, that such justices' courts shall not have jurisdiction of the following cases, viz.: * * * Of cases that in any manner shall conflict with the jurisdiction of the several courts of record in this state: And provided further, * * * the Legislature may confer upon said courts, jurisdiction concurrent with the district courts, of actions to enforce mechanics' liens, wherein the amount (exclusive of interest) does not exceed three hundred dollars. * * *"

By statute it is provided that the justices' courts shall have--

"concurrent jurisdiction with the district courts of actions for the enforcement of mechanics' liens, where the amount of the lien sought to be enforced, exclusive of interest, does not exceed three hundred dollars."Rev. Laws, § 5714, subd. 11.

There is some slight difference in the wording of the Constitution and the wording of the statute cited supra; but as the Legislature cannot by statute confer a broader jurisdiction upon justices' courts than that authorized by the Constitution, we need only consider the language of the Constitution.

It is the contention of counsel for appellant that the language of the Constitution, cited supra, does not contemplate the conferring of jurisdiction upon justices' courts of an action to foreclose two or more mechanics' liens where the aggregate amount of the liens exceeds $300, notwithstanding each of the several liens sought to be foreclosed in one action is for an amount less than $300.We agree with this contention of counsel.Our attention has not been called to a similar provision appearing in the Constitution of any other state which has been construed.At the time this provision was under consideration by the constitutional convention, it was contended by Mr. Brosnan (afterwards a justice of this court) that none of the state Constitutions distinctly defined the jurisdiction of justices of the peace, but that such jurisdiction was a matter which the Legislature was empowered to fix, citing "American Constitutions."Nevada Constitutional Debates, p. 691.

Examining the history of this provision of our Constitution, we find that the original proposed draft of the section recommended by the committee did not contain such provision.In this connection we find the following resolution offered by Mr. Banks:

"Resolved, that article 6 be referred to the judiciary committee, with instructions to so amend the same as to give to justices of the peace jurisdiction in all cases of forcible entry and unlawful detainer, and mechanics' liens, where the amount involved does not exceed three hundred dollars."Nev. Const.Debates, p. 688.

Discussing this proposed amendment, Mr. De Long is reported (page 688) as saying:

"Suppose we confer jurisdiction, as he proposes, to the extent of $300, in cases of mechanics' liens.There may be one mechanic who claims a lien of only $300, and he brings his suit before a justice of the peace.But the law requires that all other parties holding liens on that property, when he commences to foreclose, shall come forward and present their claims, and it is a principle of equity that the first claimant shall be estopped from proceeding until all the other claims are united with his.Consequently, there are several men having liens, to the amount of $10,000, perhaps, on the same building.They cannot present that case in a justice's court, because the court cannot render a judgment for such an amount; and what are you going to do?It is evident that you cannot settle it by one suit, and consequently you must permit a multiplicity of suits.Suppose we engraft in the article the provision which the gentleman suggests, what is to be done in a case where there is one lien of $10,000 and another of $300?Both liens must be paid, and the proper way is to have them all come in together, that the chancellor may make his decree in such manner that full and fair equity may be done to all; but under this provision, the $300 man would be obliged to go off and commence suit on his own hook.It would certainly increase the difficulties in the way of obtaining justice for the poor man."

To these remarks Mr. Banks is reported (page 689) as replying as follows:

"I wish to reply to that portion of the speech of the gentleman from Storey (Mr. De Long), in which he refers to mechanics' liens, and what would be the course of proceeding in such a case as the one to which he has referred.Now suppose, for instance, that this amendment be adopted, and one man brings his suit under the mechanic's lien law, claiming that he is entitled to receive some amount less than $300; then others come in with their claims, amounting in the aggregate to a sum which exceeds $300.At the very worst, all that is then required is to transfer the case to a court of competent jurisdiction.Such has been the practice in California, and no doubt it will be in this state, if we shall adopt this proposition."

The form of the provision as finally adopted was drafted by Judge Brosnan.Debates, pp. 700-702.Relative to the final draft, the following colloquy is reported (page 702) as occurring between Delegates Banks and Brosnan:

"Mr. Banks: Then I understand from the gentleman from Storey that, in case of the foreclosing of mechanics' liens, suit may be brought, within the amount of $300, in a justice's court.

...