John A. Roebling's Sons Co. v. Humboldt Electric Light & Power Co.

Van Fleet, J. The contract between the Pacific Electrical Storage Company and the Humboldt Electric Light and Power Company did not constitute the former corporation an “original contractor” for the construc[290]fcion of the electric light works of the latter company, within the meaning of the provisions of the code relating to liens of mechanics and others.

That contract, in effect, simply provided for the furnishing and setting up, complete and ready for use, by the Pacific Electrical Storage Company, in a building to be provided by the purchaser, of certain specified “electrical apparatus and machinery ” necessary to be used in the construction of such electric light works—this apparatus, consisting of dynamos, converters, switchboard, lamps, etc., with the necessary wiring and connections, constituting in technical parlance an “electrical plant.” The Humboldt Electric Light and Power Company was itself constructing the works, and such machinery or plant was simply purchased by it for use therein. This is expressly contemplated by the contract, which provides by its terms that the last-named ■corporation, which is therein designated the “ purchaser,” shall erect the necessary building to receive •such plant, build a powerhouse, and furnish the required motive power, including all necessary shafting, ■belts, pulleys, etc., for connecting the power with such electrical machinery, and construct the pole line required in transmitting and distributing the light. And it also provides that the title to the plant shall not pass to the purchaser “until it is fully paid for as per contract.” Under such a contract it is clear that the relation of the Pacific Electrical Storage Company was that of a materialman and nothing more. (Hinckley v. Field’s Biscuit etc. Co., 91 Cal. 136; Sparks v. Butte County etc. Min. Co., 55 Cal. 389, 392; Donahue v. Cromartie, 21 Cal. 80.)

) In the first case above cited, where the party was employed under a contract not essentially different from the one before us, to manufacture and furnish a steam plant, consisting of boiler, engine, feed pipes, etc., and put such machinery in place in a building belonging to the purchaser, for the purpose of converting the premises into a factory, it was held that the one so employed [291]was a materialman, and not a contractor, within the provisions of sections 1183 and 1184 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The same principle is upheld by the other cases cited.