Silvester v. Coe Quartz Mine Co.

Works, J. This action was brought by three plaintiffs, jointly, to foreclose their separate material-men’s liens on the mining claim of the defendant for materials furnished for repairs on said claim. The work on the mining property was done by a contractor, who was to erect hydraulic-power hoisting-works and pumping-works building, gallows-frame and track, lay down a water-pipe to supply water to the mine, and to pump out the mine to the third level. There was but one contract to do all of the work named for a certain number of the shares of stock of the company, and the contract was not recorded.

The evidence shows that the materials sold by the plaintiffs were sold to be used in the repairs of said mine, and, with the exception hereinafter mentioned, were used therein, some being used in one of the improvements mentioned and some in another.

The court finds, generally, that the materials “were used in and on said premises in the alterations thereof.”

The appellant contends that the statute does not give to material-men liens upon mining claims, but only “upon each separate structure and convenient space around the same, and not for materials supplied and used generally for the alteration and repair of a mining claim,” and upon this basis it is argued that the notices of the liens being against the mine, and not the structures erected in repairing the same, they were invalid; and further, that as some of the structures were completed more than thirty days before the notices were filed for record, they were inoperative.

We cannot concur in this view.

The lien given by the statute is upon the mining [512]claim as a whole, and not upon the separate pieces of work done in its repair. (Code Civ. Proe., sec. 1183.) The mine is a structure Avithin the meaning of the statute. (Helm v. Chapman, 66 Cal. 291.) The work done in this case became and was a part of the mining claim, and the whole claim, including the added improvements, wras subject to the lien. (Civ. Code, sec. 661.) Therefore, the notice of lien, as against the mining- claim, was valid, and the contract for the several items of improvement being entire, the notice given within thirty days after the completion of the Avhole work was in time.

It is objected that the findings were not sufficiently - full on some of- the issues, but we regard them as sufficient.