Hines v. Miller

California Supreme Court Nov 30, 1898 No. Sac. No. 409Published

Before: Searls

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that owners of a mining claim who authorize work and improvements under a contract are deemed to have notice of such work, and their failure to post a notice of non-responsibility renders their interest subject to mechanics' liens.

Issues

Whether a complaint sufficiently states a cause of action for a mechanics' lien when it alleges the work was performed for an agent of the owners.
Whether labor performed in sinking a shaft on a mining claim entitles the laborer to a mechanics' lien.
Whether an agreement authorizing mining development constitutes sufficient notice to owners to subject their interest to mechanics' liens under the Code of Civil Procedure.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“He who engages in the construction of those prime requisites upon or in a mine is engaged in mining equally with one who extracts the gravel or ore therefrom.”

“It is quite apparent that the appellants contemplated the working of the mine, and the making of such improvements was essential thereto.”

“Having so consented they must be deemed to have had notice of the contemplated improvements, and having failed to disclaim liability by giving the notice as required by section 1192, the findings and judgment are correct”

Synopsis

Mechanics’ Liens—Work upon Mining Claim—Employment by Agent of Owners—Notice.—In case o£ employment of laborers claiming mechanic’s liens upon a mining claim, by one who was in charge of and superintending the work as the agent of the owners in the working of the claim, the rule of notice to or knowledge by the owners of the performance of labor in improvements made by persons other than the owners, provided for by section 1192 of the Code of Civil Procedure, has no application.

Id.—Sinking Shaft upon Quartz Claim.—Persons employed in sinking a shaft on a quartz mining claim are each entitled to a lien upon the mining claim for the labor so performed.

in.—Meaning of Mining Terms—Judicial Notice.—Courts will take judicial notice of the true significance of all English words and phrases, and that such expressions as shafts, tunnels, levels, chutes, stopes, uprises, cross-cuts, inclines, et cetera, when applied to mines, signify instrumentalities, through which the mines are opened, developed, prospected, and worked; and he who engages in the construction of any of them, is engaged in., mining equally with one who extracts the gravel or ore from the mine.

Id.—Shaft Sunk by Lessees—Knowledge of Owners—Absence of Notice to Laborers—Enforcement of Liens.—Work done by lessees in sinking a shaft under a lease from the owners of a mine which by its terms expressly provides that the lessees may sink shafts and run tunnels in working and developing the mine,. and that the lessors were to receive one-fourth of the gross output, must be deemed done with the knowledge of the owners;, and in the absence of the notice by the owners provided for in section 1192 of the Code of Civil Procedure that they would not be responsible therefor, liens may be enforced against them by the laborers employed in the work.

SEARLS, C. Two actions to foreclose mechanics’ liens upon the Pampa Hill Quartz mine, situated in the county of Tuolumne. The actions were consolidated, the cause tried by the court sitting without a jury, and written findings filed, upon which judgment of foreclosure was rendered in favor of the plaintiffs. Defendants appeal from the judgment and from an order denying their motion for a new trial.

Appellants interposed a demurrer to the complaint, upon the ground that it did not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. This demurrer was properly overruled.

The precise objection to the complaint is that it shows that-certain of the defendants (the appellants here) were the owners of the mining claim, and that it fails to show that they had: notice of the performance of the labor performed thereon by plaintiffs, while it was being so performed, as provided by section 1192 of the Code of Civil Procedure;

The response to this contention is, that the complaint does; not show that the labor was performed for any person or per[519]sons other than the owners. It avers that the several plaintiffs performed the labor at the special instance and request of one William Moorehead, who was in charge of and superintending the work, and who was, as they are informed and believe, during said time, “the agent of defendants in the working of said claim.” If this was true the doctrine of notice to the defendants required in cases where the improvements are made by others than the owners had no application. There are several causes of action set out by the several plaintiffs in each of the cases, but, as they are all precisely alike in the respect noticed, what is said of one applies equally to all.

2. The contention that plaintiffs failed to show that the labor which they performed entitled them to a lien upon the mine cannot be maintained.

The allegations of the complaint are (and the evidence sustains them), that the several plaintiffs performed labor as miners in sinking a shaft on that certain mining claim, describing it as a quartz mining claim. Section 1875 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that courts will take judicial notice of certain things, among which are “the true significance of all English words and phrases, and of all legal expressions.” The true meaning of such expressions as shaft, tunnels, levels, chutes, slopes, uprises, cross-cuts, inclines, et cetera, when applied to mines, signifies instrumentalities whereby and through which such mines are opened, developed, prospected, improved, and worked. (Helm v. Chapman, 66 Cal. 291; Silvester v. Coe etc. Min. Co., 80 Cal. 512.)

Hines v. Miller

AI Brief

Synopsis

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief