Storey & Fawcett v. Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District

Decision Date12 February 1920
Citation32 Idaho 713,187 P. 946
CourtIdaho Supreme Court
PartiesSTOREY & FAWCETT, a Copartnership, Composed of CHARLES STOREY and FRANK FAWCETT, Respondent, v. NAMPA AND MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT, a Corporation, Appellant

QUANTUM MERUIT - INTEREST PRIOR TO JUDGMENT - FINDINGS-CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT-ENGINEER'S ESTIMATES-MECHANIC'S LIEN-IRRIGATION DISTRICT-PUBLIC PROPERTY-MUNICIPAL CORPORATION-STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION.

1. In an action to recover the reasonable value of services performed and materials furnished, where the amount due is not susceptible of ascertainment by computation or by reference to market values, interest will not be allowed prior to the verdict of the jury or decision of the court.

2. A judgment will not be reversed for want of a finding by the lower court, unless it appears from the record that there was evidence before the court from which it was required to make a finding which would countervail its other findings.

3. Refusal by one of the parties to a construction contract to pay an engineer's estimate, when due under the contract is such a violation thereof as gives the other party a right to abandon the contract and sue for the reasonable value of the services rendered and materials furnished.

4. An irrigation district is a municipal corporation and its property is public property.

5. A mechanic's lien does not attach to public property unless expressly provided by statute.

[As to the right to mechanic's lien on public property, see note in Ann.Cas. 1914C, 102.]

6. C S., secs. 7339, 7340 and 7341, do not provide for a mechanic's lien as against the property of any municipal corporation other than a county, city, town or school district, and the property of an irrigation district is not the subject of a mechanic's lien under existing statutes.

APPEAL from the District Court of the Third Judicial District, for Ada County. Hon. Charles P. McCarthy, Judge.

Action to foreclose mechanic's lien. Judgment for plaintiff. Modified and affirmed.

Judgment modified, and affirmed. Costs awarded in favor of the district on both appeals.

Hugh T McElroy, for Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District.

The court erred when it failed to find upon the issues of fact relating to the liquidated damages claimed by defendant in its cross-complaint and counterclaim. All parties to the action formally requested the court to make this finding of fact. (Wood v. Broderson, 12 Idaho 190, 85 P. 490; Brown v. Macey, 13 Idaho 451, 456, 90 P. 339.)

"An irrigation district organized under the Wright Act becomes a public corporation and its officers become public officers of the state." (In re Madera Irr. Dist., 92 Cal 296, 27 Am. St. 106, 28 P. 272, 675, 14 L. R. A. 755.)

"Its officers are public officers chosen by the electors of the district and invested with public duties." (People v. Selma Irr. Dist., 98 Cal. 206, 32 P. 1047.)

"Irrigation districts organized under the laws of the state are quasi-municipal corporations." (Hertle v. Ball, 9 Idaho 193, 72 P. 953; Pioneer Irr. Dist. v. Walker, 20 Idaho 605, 119 P. 304; Colburn v. Wilson, 23 Idaho 337, 130 P. 381; Little Willow Irr. Dist. v. Haynes, 24 Idaho 317, 133 P. 905; Payette Heights Irr. Dist. v. Haynes, 24 Idaho 321, 133 P. 907; Brown Bros. v. Columbia Irr. Dist., 82 Wash. 274, 144 P. 74.) A lien against the property of a public corporation under the general lien laws of the state is not permitted. (Bloom on Mechanics' Liens, sec. 192; Mayrhofer v. Board of Education, 89 Cal. 110, 23 Am. St. 451, 26 P. 646; Florman v. School District No. 11, 6 Colo. App. 319, 40 P. 469; People v. San Joaquin Valley Agricultural Assn., 151 Cal. 797, 91 P. 740.)

"The mechanic's lien law must be strictly construed and cannot be extended beyond the express provisions of the statute." (Bradbury v. Idaho & O. Land Imp. Co., 2 Idaho 239, 10 P. 620; Emory v. Commissioners of Town of Laurel, 3 Penne. (Del.) 267, 55 A. 1118.)

"Mechanics' liens cannot be acquired or enforced upon or against property held for public uses." (Townsend v. Cleveland etc. Co., 18 Ind.App. 568, 47 N.E. 707; A. L. & E. F. Goss Co. v. Greenleaf, 98 Me. 436, 57 A. 581; Lessard v. Revere, 171 Mass. 294, 50 N.E. 533; Hicks v. Roanoke Brick Co., 94 Va. 741, 27 S.E. 596.)

"Public property cannot be the subject of a mechanic's lien unless the statute creating such a lien expressly so provides." (Knapp v. Swaney, 56 Mich. 345, 56 Am. Rep. 397, 23 N.W. 162; Portland Lumbering & M. Co. v. School Dist., 13 Ore. 283, 10 P. 350.)

Money is not due on a claim which is the basis of a cause of action until the amount of the claim is made definite and certain, either by contract or judgment. (Sutherland on Damages, 4th ed., sec. 347; Herrman v. Leland, 163 A.D. 515, 148 N.Y.S. 643; Schmidt v. Briarcliff Lodge Assn., 147 N.Y.S. 911; Illinois Surety Co. v. United States, 215 F. 334, 131 C. C. A. 476; Stephens v. Phoenix Bridge Co., 139 F. 248, 71 C. C. A. 374.)

"The claim of the contractor on a quantum meruit being unliquidated and incapable of determination or arithmetical calculation, interest cannot be allowed." (General Supply & Construction Co. v. Goelet, 149 A.D. 80, 133 N.Y.S. 978; Fox v. Davidson, 111 A.D. 174, 97 N.Y.S. 603; Macomber v. Bigelow, 126 Cal. 9, 14, 58 P. 312; American-Hawaiian Engineering & Const. Co. v. Butler, 17 Cal.App. 764, 121 P. 709.)

Martin & Martin, for Storey & Fawcett.

If, as a matter of fact, the plaintiffs' claim was liquidated or capable of computation by fixed values or prices, then they were entitled to interest notwithstanding the fact that the defendant set up claims for damages and offsets which were unliquidated and could not be ascertained from computation. (1 Sutherland on Damages, 2d ed., pp. 634, 682, 698, 727; State v. Title Guaranty & Surety Co., 27 Idaho 752, 152 P. 189; Mix v. Miller, 57 Cal. 356; McFadden v. Crawford, 39 Cal. 662; Sullivan v. McMillan, 37 Fla. 134, 53 Am. St. 239, 19 So. 340; White v. Miller, 78 N.Y. 393, 34 Am. Rep. 544; Van Rensselaer v. Jewett, 2 N.Y. 135, 51 Am. Dec. 275; McMahon v. New York & Erie R. Co., 20 N.Y. 463; Knowles v. Baldwin, 125 Cal. 224, 57 P. 988; Lane v. Turner, 114 Cal. 396, 46 P. 290; Pacific Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Fisher, 106 Cal. 224, 39 P. 758; Wells v. Crawford, 23 Colo. App. 103, 127 P. 914; Healy v. Fallon, 69 Conn. 228, 37 A. 495; Sweeney v. Lewis Construction Co., 74 Wash. 303, 133 P. 441; Eilers Music House v. Hopkins, 73 Wash. 281, 131 P. 838; Fairchild v. Bay Point & C. R. Co., 22 Cal.App. 328, 134 P. 338; Idaho Gold Coin Min. & Mill. Co. v. Colorado Iron Works Co., 49 Colo. 66, 111 P. 553; Kuhn v. McKay, 7 Wyo. 42, 49 P. 473, 51 P. 205.)

The refusal to pay an engineer's estimate when due is such a violation of the contract as gives the other party a right to abandon it and sue on a quantum meruit for the value of the services. (San Francisco Bridge Co. v. Dumbarton Land & Improvement Co., 119 Cal. 272, 51 P. 335; American-Hawaiian Eng. & Const. Co. v. Butler, 165 Cal. 497, Ann. Cas. 1916C, 44, 133 P. 280; Woodruff Co. v. Exchange Realty Co., 21 Cal.App. 607, 132 P. 598; Norrington v. Wright, 115 U.S. 188, 6 S.Ct. 12, 29 L.Ed. 366, see, also, Rose's U. S. Notes; Richmond Dredging Co. v. Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co., 31 Cal.App. 399, 160 P. 862.)

From C. S., secs. 7339, 7340 and 7341, it is evident that the legislature intended that every person who furnished labor or material in the construction, alteration or repair of every kind of property should be protected by a lien on the property so constructed, altered or repaired. (Hill v. Twin Falls Salmon River Land & Water Co., 22 Idaho 274, 125 P. 204.)

An irrigation district is "the owner of its system in a proprietary rather than a public capacity, and must assume and bear the burdens of proprietary ownership." Upon what theory, then, can it be contended that its property is not subject to a lien the same as the property of other corporations? (City of Nampa v. Nampa & Meridian Irr. Dist., 19 Idaho 779, 115 P. 979; Pioneer Irr. Dist. v. Walker, 20 Idaho 605, 119 P. 304; Colburn v. Wilson, 23 Idaho 337, 130 P. 381; City of Nampa v. Nampa & Meridian Irr. Dist., 23 Idaho 422, 131 P. 8; Little Willow Irr. Dist. v. Haynes, 24 Idaho 317, 133 P. 905.)

While an irrigation district is not specifically mentioned in the lien laws (which were passed long before the irrigation district laws), still the lien laws are sufficiently broad to cover the property of these districts. (Hertle v. Ball, 9 Idaho 193, 72 P. 953; In re Bank of Nampa, 29 Idaho 166, 157 P. 1117.)

Many corporations, such as railroads, street railways, electric light, water companies, etc., transact a business which renders them particularly beneficial, if not necessary, to the public, and these are called quasi-public corporations. They are, however, owned and controlled by individual stockholders who are alone benefited by the profits of the business. The property of such corporations, under the holdings of all the courts, is subject to mechanics' liens. (Brooks v. Burlington etc. R. R. Co., 101 U.S. 443, 25 L.Ed. 1057; Meyer v. Hornby, 101 U.S. 728, 25 L.Ed. 1078, see, also, Rose's U. S. Notes; Midland Ry. Co. v. Wilcox, 122 Ind. 84, 23 N.E. 506; Farmers' Loan & T. Co. v. Candler, 87 Ga. 241, 13 S.E. 560; Beach v. Wakefield, 107 Iowa 567, 76 N.W. 688, 78 N.W. 197; National Foundry & Pipe Works v. Oconto Water Co., 52 F. 43; Oconto Water Co. v. National Foundry etc. Works, 59 F. 19, 7 C. C. A. 603; Ireland v. Atchison etc. Ry. Co., 79 Mo. 572.)

On appeals from the judgment of a lower court upon the judgment-roll alone, where there are no bills of exception or statements of the case, this court will disregard any matters which appear in the record and are not made a part of the judgment-roll by the statute...

To continue reading

Request your trial
31 cases
  • Brizendine v. Nampa Meridian Irrigation Dist., 11742
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Idaho
    • March 26, 1976
    ......v. . NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT, Defendant-Appellant and Cross-Respondent. . No. 11742. . Supreme Court of Idaho. . March 26, ...Dist. v. VanDeusen, 31 Idaho 779, 176 P. 887 (1918); Yaden v. Gem Irr. Dist., supra; Storey & Fawcett v. Nampa & Meridian Irr. Dist., 32 Idaho 713, 187 P. 946 (1920). In addition, they have ......
  • Gridley v. Ross
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Idaho
    • August 8, 1923
    ...... . . 1. When. the district court obtained jurisdiction to grant a. ...Co., 29 Idaho 139, 157 P. 1016; Storey &. Fawcett v. Nampa & Meridian Irr. Dist., 32 ......
  • Gould v. Hill
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Idaho
    • September 23, 1926
    ...... . . APPEAL. from the District Court of the Eleventh Judicial District,. for ...Donaldson, 31 Idaho 180, 170 P. 94; Storey & Faweett v. Nampa etc. Irr. Dist., 32. Idaho ...94; Storey & Fawcett. v. Nampa etc. Irr. Dist. , 32 Idaho 713, 187 P. ......
  • First Security Bank of Pocatello v. Zaring Farm & Livestock Co.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Idaho
    • April 1, 1932
    ...... . . APPEAL. from the District Court of the Fifth Judicial District, for. ... require a reversal on this point. (Storey & Fawcett v. Nampa & Meridian Irr. Dist., 32 ......
  • 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