Tex. v. Orman
| Decision Date | 30 January 1886 |
| Citation | 9 P. 595,3 N.M. 652 |
| Court | New Mexico Supreme Court |
| Parties | TEXAS, S. F. & N. R. CO.v.ORMAN and another. |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Error to district court, Santa Fe county.
Where one who did work on a railroad under contracts dated in May, July, and August, failed in his notice of lien to refer to the July contract, no lien can be allowed him for work done under such contract.
Gildersleeve & Preston, and Catron, Thornton & Clancy, for plaintiff in error.
H. L. Waldo, Wm. Breeden, and John H. Knaebel, for defendants in error.
Two writs of error were sued out, but embrace in legal effect only one final decree in the court below, as appears from the transcripts of the record returned into this court in obedience to the writs.
In No. 199 a motion was filed in this cause to quash the writ of error. In overruling that motion at this term Mr. Justice BRINKER, in delivering the opinion of the court, entered into a full statement of the facts, and we deem it useless to repeat what was then stated.1 The two cases will be considered together. This suit was brought in equity by Orman and Crook to enforce a mechanic's lien on defendant's line of railroad, running from Espanola, in the county of Rio Arriba, to Santa Fe, in Santa Fe county. The bill was filed in November, 1883, and a final decree entered in favor of complainants on the thirteenth day of June, 1884, for $29,657.04, and the same declared a lien on the entire property of the defendant company between the points named. Many errors are assigned for our consideration, but we will only look into a few.
ante. 253.
Plaintiffs filed in the two counties, in the manner prescribed by law, notice of the lien claimed, and thereafter filed a bill to enforce their demand, referring to the notices as filed, but did not specifically set out the particular items as stated in the notice. The plaintiffs were contractors, in charge of the construction of the division of the road from Espanola to Santa Fe. They set out in detail the work and labor performed and materials furnished in the construction of that part of the line of railroad. The defendant filed a demurrer to the bill, which was overruled, and he assigns the overruling of that demurrer as error. The bill was not drawn, perhaps, with that degree of care and particularity that the nature of the remedy sought to be enforced required, under the decisions of many courts, but this court, at the last term, held that the statute conferring liens of this kind should be liberally construed. All of the substantial requirements of the statute were complied with, so far as the pleader attempted to follow up the lien embraced in the claim and notice filed before that time. The contracts under which the work was done were dated in May, July, and August, 1882. The notice of lien did not refer to the July contract. The bill seeks to enforce...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Roth v. Thompson
...as the foundation of the action), aff'd on other grounds, 168 U.S. 513, 18 S.Ct. 170, 42 L.Ed. 562 (1897); Texas S.F. & N. R.R. v. Orman, 3 N.M. 652, 654, 9 P. 595, 596 (1886) (notice and claim of lien prerequisites to the creation and enforcement of any lien whatever). In contrast to Roth'......
-
Weggs v. Kreugel
...This ruling was correct. That a claim of lien be prepared and filed is an essential requisite under the statute (Texas, Santa Fé & N. R. Co. v. Orman, 3 N. M. 652, 9 Pac. 595), but it is by no means the foundation of the lien nor of an action commenced to enforce it. The lien is really foun......
- Texas, S. F. & N. R. Co. v. Orman