Wheatcroft v. Griffith

• Decision Date: 01 March 1926
• Citation: 245 P. 71,42 Idaho 231
• Parties: JOHN WHEATCROFT and JAMES WHEATCROFT, Appellants, v. J. N. GRIFFITHS and THE FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF EMMETT, a Corporation, Respondents
• Court: Idaho Supreme Court

245 P. 71

42 Idaho 231

JOHN WHEATCROFT and JAMES WHEATCROFT, Appellants, v. J. N. GRIFFITHS and THE FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF EMMETT, a Corporation, Respondents

Supreme Court of Idaho

March 1, 1926

AGRICULTURE - FARM LABORER'S LIEN - EFFECT OF MERGING LIENABLE AND NONLIENABLE ITEMS.

1. Where a farm laborer performs services for which he is to be compensated under entire contract embracing lienable and nonlienable items, he is only entitled to lien for lienable items when value thereof can be distinguished from nonlienable items, and when value of services cannot be distinguished lien must fail.

2. In action by farm laborers to foreclose laborers' liens evidence held insufficient as to value of lienable services apart from value of nonlienable services, to sustain liens under C. S., sec. 7372.

APPEAL from the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, for Camas County. Hon. H. F. Ensign, Judge.

Action to foreclose two farm laborers' liens. Judgment for defendants. Affirmed.

Affirmed.

Frank Croner, for Appellants.

"Anyone performing labor or rendering services in the production of a crop may have a lien for his labor and services on the entire crop produced." (Beckstead v. Griffith, 11 Idaho 738, 83 P. 764.)

C. S., sec. 7372, is remedial and should be liberally construed in favor of those for whose benefit it was enacted.

"It is our idea that it was the intention of the legislature to give a lien on any crops raised on any part of a farm for any tilling of any portion of that farm." (Hubbell v. Cantonwine, 123 Wash. 328, 212 P. 176.)

R. M. Angel, for Respondent First National Bank of Emmett.

"A court of chancery is not authorized to extend the lien to cases not provided for by statute." (Buchan v. Sumner, 2 Barb. Ch. (N. Y.) 165, 47 Am. Dec. 305; Beckstead v. Griffith, 11 Idaho 738, 83 P. 764; Chapman v. Averill Machinery Co., 28 Idaho 121, 152 P. 573.)

"Where a claim of lien includes both lienable and nonlienable items, and by reason of the method of stating them the nonlienable items cannot be segregated from the general aggregate, the lien must fail." (18 R. C. L. 942, and cases cited; Bicknell v. Trickey, 34 Me. 273; Adler v. World's Pastime Exp. Co., 126 Ill. 373, 18 N.E. 809; 2 Parsons on Contracts, 8th ed., p. 519; Baker v. Fessenden, 71 Me. 292; Edgar v. Salisbury, 17 Mo. 271; Nelson v. Withrow, 14 Mo.App. 270; Getty v. Ames, 30 Ore. 573, 60 Am. St. 835, 48 P. 355.)

VARIAN, Commissioner. William A. Lee, C. J., and Wm. E. Lee, Budge, Givens and Taylor, JJ., concur.

OPINION

VARIAN, Commissioner.

This is an action to foreclose two farm laborers' liens upon hay crops grown upon premises farmed by J. N. Griffith during the season of 1921. The claims of lien are identical, except as to the amount of wages claimed and the times of employment. From a judgment denying a lien, plaintiffs appeal.

A lien is claimed upon "All the hay now in stack, consisting of alfalfa, timothy and mixed hay, now located upon the ranches known as the Couch and Griffith ranches located about five miles North and West of Fairfield, in Camas County, Idaho." After naming said Griffith as the owner, or reputed owner, of said ranches, each claim reads, "That at the instance and request of the defendant, J. N. Griffith, . . . . performed labor upon said crops of hay in irrigating, cutting and stacking the same, and as general laborer upon the land and premises farmed and occupied by the defendant."

Taken in their entirety, the notices of claim of lien substantially comply with the statutory requirements.

J. N. Griffith defaulted, and the cause was tried upon the amended complaint and the answer thereto of the respondent The First National Bank of Emmett. The bank's interest in the hay involved in this action is that of mortgagee.

Farm laborers are granted a lien for their services by section 1 of an act of the legislature, approved March 10, 1903, amending the Lien Act of 1899; C. S., sec. 7372.

"Section 1. Any person who does any labor on a farm or land in tilling the same, or in cultivating, harvesting, threshing, or housing any crop or crops raised thereon has a lien on such crop or crops for such labor, and such lien shall be a preferred and prior lien thereon to any crop or chattel mortgage placed thereon, and any mortgagee taking a chattel or crop mortgage on any crop or crops, upon which any person shall perform labor in cultivating, harvesting, threshing, or housing said crop, shall take such mortgage subject to, and such mortgage shall be a subsequent lien to that of the person or persons performing such labor as to a reasonable compensation for such labor; Provided, That the interest in any crop of any lessor or lessors of land where the premises are leased in consideration of a share in the crop raised thereon is not subject to such lien." (Sess. Laws 1903, p. 93.)

The trial court found that appellants' labor consisted in feeding livestock, milking cows, fixing fences and other general farm duties, and that they performed no labor whatever upon the crops of hay sought to be charged with lien during the months of November and December, 1920, or the months of January, February, March and April, 1921. He further found that in the months of May, June, July, August, September and October, 1921, "the plaintiffs continued to perform general farm labor and worked a portion of the time upon the crop of hay, but as to what portion of time the evidence is indefinite and uncertain, and the court is unable to determine from the testimony what labor was performed by either of the plaintiffs upon said crop, or segregate the time so spent from the time occupied in general farm labor."

As conclusion of law, the court held that neither plaintiff was entitled to any lien for the months of November and December, 1920, and the months of January, February, March, and April, 1921, having performed no lienable labor during said months; "that the evidence as to what labor was performed upon said crop of hay for the remaining period of time is insufficient to enable the court to segregate the lienable and nonlienable items, and the said plaintiffs are not entitled to liens for labor other than as defined by statute, and are not entitled to lien upon the said crop for time spent in feeding and caring for stock, milking cows and the like, and the said defendants for the foregoing reasons have no lien upon the crop of hay described in the complaint."

It was decreed that the appellants take nothing by their complaint, and that the respondent bank recover its costs. Apparently appellants did not insist upon a personal judgment in this action against their employer, Griffith.

The record discloses that appellant John Wheatcroft was employed by J. N. Griffith, who had leased a ranch from one Couch, paying a rental therefor of one-third of the crops. Griffith also owned a ranch of his own, there being altogether about four hundred acres in crop on the two ranches, which adjoined each other. Fifty acres were sown to wheat, and the balance of the four hundred acres was in alfalfa, timothy and mixed hay during the season of 1921. Twenty-four stacks of hay were cut from the first cutting. Four of these stacks went to Couch as his rental, and the remaining twenty stacks belonged to Griffith. The second cutting was nearly all alfalfa and was not irrigated. It amounted to about forty tons, thirty of which were housed in the Griffith barn and the remainder used to top out stacks from the first cutting.

Appellant John Wheatcroft was employed about October 27, 1920, to do general farm work. From November, 1920, to April 28, 1921, he assisted his employer in feeding five hundred head of cattle assisted in milking fifteen or twenty head of cows night and morning, and did other chores about the place. He also built fences around the 1920 hay crop, then in the stack, during November of that year. About April 1, 1921, he...