Ryan v. Guilfoil
| Decision Date | 09 January 1896 |
| Citation | 13 Wash. 373,43 P. 351 |
| Parties | RYAN v. GUILFOIL ET AL. |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
Appeal from superior court, King county; Alfred Battle, Judge pro tem.
Action by John Ryan against O. D. Guilfoil, Lawrence Desmond, and John W. Hart to foreclose a laborer's lien for services. From a judgment in favor of plaintiff, defendant John W. Hart appeals. Reversed.
Tipton & Haddock, for appellant.
Samuel S. Carlisle, for respondents.
The appellant, John W. Hart, and defendant O. D. Guilfoil entered into a written contract whereby Guilfoil agreed to deliver to Hart 30,000 fence posts, of dimensions specified in the article of agreement, which appears in exhibit in the case and Hart agreed to pay Guilfoil therefor upon their delivery. Respondent Ryan had been employed by Guilfoil to haul said posts from the place where they were manufactured to the place where they were to be delivered to Hart. Guilfoil failing to pay him for his services, he brought an action for the same, alleging the labor upon the posts aforesaid, and alleging that Guilfoil acted as an agent of Hart, the owner and reputed owner of the posts, in employing him; that he had duly filed his lien upon said posts, which said lien was duly recorded; asking for judgment against defendant Guilfoil and appellant, Hart, and for a decree establishing his lien upon the said logs; also alleging that respondent Lawrence Desmond claimed some lien upon or interest in the said described posts, and asking that the said Lawrence Desmond be obliged to set forth the nature of his lien or claim, and that his said lien, if he had any, should be considered to be junior to plaintiff Ryan's lien; whereupon Desmond came into the court, and asked for foreclosure of his lien upon the said posts. Upon the trial of the action, judgment was rendered in favor of plaintiff, Ryan, and against the defendant Guilfoil for the sum of $13.15, with costs and attorney's fees, and in favor of respondent Desmond, and against the defendant Guilfoil, for the sum of $100, together with costs and attorney's fees; and it was further decreed that plaintiff, Ryan, and defendant Desmond have respectively, liens for the full amount of their said judgments upon the fence posts mentioned in the complaint and that the same be sold to satisfy said judgments.
We do not think this judgment can be sustained. The court found, and the evidence shows, that the labor for which the lien is claimed was the hauling of the fence posts, after they had been manufactured, to the place designated by Hart for their reception by him. The contract between Hart and Guilfoil was a simple contract of purchase and delivery, or, rather, a purchase upon delivery. There was nothing in the contract or in the evidence which would warrant the conclusion reached by the court that Guilfoil was acting as Hart's agent in procuring this labor upon the posts. Guilfoil simply agreed to deliver 30,000 posts to Hart at a place specified, and Hart agreed to pay him for the same upon their delivery.
It is contended by the respondent that a lien of this...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Anderson v. Great Northern Ry. Co.
...application of the statute to work performed in the logging camps. As to the meaning of the words "obtain or secure," see Ryan v. Guilfoil, 13 Wash. 373, 43 P. 351. The in which sec. 5140 was enacted was given a specific title which was not made broad enough to embrace the subject treated i......
-
Billings v. Missoula White Pine Sash Co.
...the same as ours, that a claim for labor for hauling fence posts after they have been manufactured is not lienable. Ryan v. Guilfoil, 13 Wash. 373, 43 P. 351. asserts that the Washington court refused to follow the Ryan Case in the later cases of O'Brien v. Perfection Pile Preserving Co., 4......
-
Kish Equipment, Ltd. v. Xusa Forest Products, Inc.
...made no mention of the recent amendment to the logger's lien or to Campbell v. Sterling Mfg. Co., supra. Similarly, in Ryan v. Guilfoil, 13 Wash. 373, 43 P. 351 (1896), the court made no mention of the 1895 amendment to the logger's lien when deciding whether fence posts were "other timber"......
-
American Tie & Timber Co. v. Kansas City Southern Ry. Co.
... ... a statute (Gross v. Eiden, 53 Wis. 543, 547, 11 N.W ... 9); and lumber is said to include fence posts in Ryan v ... Guilfoil, 13 Wash. 373, 43 P. 351, and the court ... observed: ... 'It ... matters not whether they are split through the medium ... ...