Williams v. Toledo Coal Co.
Citation | 25 Or. 426,36 P. 159 |
Parties | WILLIAMS v. TOLEDO COAL CO. et al. |
Decision Date | 13 March 1894 |
Court | Oregon Supreme Court |
Appeal from circuit court, Benton county; J.C. Fullerton, Judge.
Action by N. Williams against the Toledo Coal Company and others. From a judgment for defendants, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.
J.R. Bryson and W.S. McFadden, for appellant.
L Flinn and C.E. Wolverton, for respondents.
This is a suit to foreclose a miner's lien. It appears from the record that the plaintiff, on July 11, 1892 filed in the office of the county clerk of Benton county Or., the following notice:
Exhibit A:
The foregoing notice is made a part of plaintiff's complaint, to which the defendants demurred for the reason that it did not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of suit, and that said notice did not comply with the requirements of the statute in such cases. The court sustained the demurrer, and, the plaintiff refusing to further plead, it was decreed that the suit be dismissed, and that the defendant recover his costs and disbursements in the suit, from which decree the plaintiff appeals.
Section 1 of said act (Sess.Laws 1891, p. 76) provides "that every person who shall do work or furnish materials for the working or development of any mine, lode mining claim, or deposit yielding metals or minerals of any kind, or for the working or development of any such mine, lode or deposit in search of such metals or minerals; and to all persons who shall do work or furnish materials upon any shaft, tunnel, incline, adit, drift, or other excavation designed or used for the purpose of draining or working any such mine, lode, or deposit, shall have a lien upon the same to secure to him the payment of the work or labor done or materials furnished by each respectively which shall attach in every case to such mine, lode, and deposit, and though such shaft, tunnel, incline, adit, drift or other excavation be not within the limits of such mine, lode or deposit." It will be seen that...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Valley Lumber & Mfg. Co. v. Nickerson
... ... claim of lien, which is, therefore, unavailing for the ... purposes intended. (Williams v. Coal Co., 25 Or ... 426, 42 Am. St. Rep. 799, 36 P. 159; Hughes v ... Lansing, 34 Or. 118, ... ...
-
Christman v. Salway
...evidence, by means of which the items for which a lien is given may be separated from those for which a lien is not given." Williams v. Toledo Coal Co., 25 Or. 426, 36 Pa. 42 Am. St. Rep. 799; Dalles Lumber & Mfg. Co. v. Wasco Woolen Mfg. Co., 3 Or. 527; Kezartee v. Marks, 15 Or. 529, 16 P.......
-
Arctic Lumber Co. v. Borden
... ... But it may be ... added that the case at bar is not like Williams v. Toledo ... Coal Co., 25 Or. 426, 36 P. 159, 42 Am.St.Rep. 799, ... cited by the appellee, in ... ...
-
Idaho Gold Min. Co. v. Winchell
... ... The principle of statutory interpretation here announced was ... applied in Williams v. Toledo Coal Co., 25 Or. 426, ... 42 Am. St. Rep 799, 36 P. 159; Silvester v. Quartz Min ... ...