Ackley v. Black Hawk Gravel Mining Co.

California Supreme Court Mar 24, 1896 No. No. 18435Published

Before: Searls

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the statute providing for wage liens and attorney's fees applies only to employees whose wages are earned and payable weekly or monthly, and because the plaintiff failed to allege such terms of employment, the lien and attorney's fee award were unauthorized.

Issues

Whether the plaintiff's failure to allege that his wages were due weekly or monthly precludes him from the benefits of the act of 1891.
Whether the trial court erred in awarding attorney's fees and a lien on the defendant's property under the statute.

Disposition. Affirmed in part and reversed in part.

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“As the remedy sought to be enforced herein exists only by virtue of the statute, it was incumbent upon the plaintiff to bring himself within the terms of the statute, and to show that the wages earned by him were ‘due weekly or monthly.’”

“As the plaintiff is not entitled to avail himself of the provisions of the act of 1891, that provision of the judgment allowing him a counsel fee was unauthorized.”

Synopsis

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Sierra County. Stanley A. Smith, Judge.

The facts are stated in the opinion.

Searls, C. This is an action to recover from the corporation defendant for work, labor, and services performed by plaintiff for said defendant, and to have the value thereof declared a lien upon the property of said defendant, under and pursuant to an act of the legislature of the state of California, approved March 31, 1891, entitled, “An act to provide for the payment of the wages of mechanics and laborers employed by corporations.” (Stats. 1891, p. 195.)

The other defendants are made parties, and averred to have, or claim to have, some interest in the property of the corporation, or lien thereon, etc.

Plaintiff had judgment against the corporation for three hundred and ninety-seven dollars for wages, a counsel fee of one hundred dollars, and costs taxed at twenty-seven dollars and thirty-five cents, making a total of five hundred and twenty-four dollars and thirty-five cents, which was declared to be a valid lien upon the property of the corporation defendant described therein, and superior , and paramount to any lien or interest of the other defendants, and decreeing the property so subject to said lien to be sold in satisfaction thereof.

Defendants appeal from the judgment, and the cause comes up on the judgment-roll without a statement or bill of exceptions.

The statute in question is brief, and we quote it in full. It is as follows:

“Section 1. Every corporation doing business in this state shall pay the mechanics and laborers employed by it the wages earned by and due them -weekly or monthly, on such day in each week or month as shall be selected by said corporation.

“Sec. 2. A violation of the provisions of section 1 of this act shall entitle each of the said mechanics and [44]laborers to a lien on all the property of said corporation for the amount of their wages, which lien shall take preference over all other liens, except duly recorded mortgages or deeds of trust; and, in any action to recover the amount of such wages, or to enforce said lien, the plaintiff shall be entitled to a reasonable attorney’s fee, to be fixed by the court, and which shall form part of the judgment in said action, and shall also be entitled to an attachment against said property.”

Various points are made by appellant in favor of reversal, one only of which need be noticed.

Ackley v. Black Hawk Gravel Mining Co.

AI Brief

Synopsis

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief