Blackburn v. Bell (1899) · DecisionDepot

Blackburn v. Bell

Name: California Superior Court Tentative Rulings
Creator: DecisionDepot
License: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

California Supreme Court Jun 21, 1899 No. L. A. No. 474Published

Before: Dyke

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a thresher's lien under the Act of 1885 expires if a suit to recover the claim is not commenced within ten days after the claimant ceases work. Because the plaintiffs filed their action more than ten days after ceasing work, they were not entitled to the lien.

Issues

Whether the plaintiffs' thresher's lien remained valid when the action was commenced more than ten days after the cessation of work.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The lien shall expire unless a suit to recover the amount of the claim is brought within ten days after the party ceases work.”

“The lien in question is purely statutory, and the right to the same cannot be extended beyond the limits prescribed by the plain language of the law.”

Synopsis

Thresher’s Lien—Limitation oe Action.—The thresher’s lien, given by the act of 1885 (Stats. 1885, p. 109), for work done while a threshing machine is engaged in threshing, is purely statutory, and the right to the same cannot be extended beyond the limits prescribed by the plain language of the law. The lien expires by limitation, unless action is brought to recover the amount of the claim within ten days after the party ceases work.

VAN DYKE, J. The plaintiffs were engaged in San Luis Obispo county as threshers, and the action is for their wages as such and to enforce a thresher’s lien under the act of 1885. (Stats. 1885, p. 109.) The act reads as follows:

“Section 1. Every person performing work or labor of any kind in, with, about or upon any threshing machine, the engine, horse-power, wagons, or appurtenances thereof, while engaged in threshing, shall have a lien upon the same to the extent of the value of his services.

“Sec. 2. The lien herein given shall extend for ten days after the person has ceased such work or labor.

“Sec. 3. If judgment shall be recovered in any action to re[172]cover for said services for work or labor performed, and said property shall be sold, the proceeds of such sale shall be distributed pro rata to all judgment creditors who have, within ten. days, begun suits to recover judgments for the amount due them for such work.

“Sec. 4. The lien shall expire unless a suit to recover the amount of the claim is brought within ten days after the party ceases work.”

The findings of the court bearing on the question involved in the appeal are as follows:

“1. That each and every one of the plaintiffs mentioned in said complaint was employed by the defendant to do and did perform work and labor in, with, and upon the threshing machine and appurtenances mentioned and described in said complaint while the same was engaged in threshing during the threshing season of 1896.

“2. That each and every one of said plaintiffs ceased such work and labor on September 16, 1896, between 11 and 12 o’clock A. M., and at no time since then has been engaged in such work and labor for defendant or any one on said machine.

“3. That no threshing has been done at any time with said machine since September 16, 1896.

“4. That such work and labor had ceased for more than ten days before plaintiff commenced this action.”

The action was commenced September 28, 1896, and as a conclusion of law the court found in favor of the plaintiffs for their money demand, in the aggregate sum of four hundred and sixteen dollars and sixty-five cents, but that plaintiffs have no liens upon, and cannot enforce the lien against, the threshing machine and appurtenances mentioned and described in said complaint, or at all.

Blackburn v. Bell

AI Brief

Synopsis

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief