Case ID: ariz_16/html/0417-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

[Civil No. 1417.
    Filed February 20, 1915.]
    [146 Pac. 512.]
    C. O. FOLTZ, Appellant, v. JOHN BARTLETT, Appellee.
    1. Mines and Minerals—Laborer’s Lien on Mining Claims.—Civil Code of 1901, paragraph 2904, giving laborers on any mining claim a lien for the amount unpaid, does not give a lien to laborers on mining property, unless they perform labor at the request of the owner or his agent, and an owner who gives to a purchaser an option contract, and permits him to enter on and develop the property, does not make him an agent, and does not authorize a lien for employees of the purchaser.
    [As to who is a “laborer” within statute, giving liens to laborers, see note in Ann. Cas. 1913B, 138.]
    2. Constitutional Law—Impairing Obligation or Contracts—Statutes—Construction.—Civil Code of 1913, paragraph 3654, giving laborers on mining claims a lien for labor by virtue of a contract between them and the owner or his agent, trustee, receiver, contractor or contractors, or purchaser under option contract, cannot apply to an owner giving an option contract to sell prior to the passage of the provision, for otherwise the provision will impair the obligation of a contract, in violation of Constitution, article 2, section 25.
    3. Mines and Minerals—Laborer’s Lien on Mining Claims—Statutes —Validity.—This section, when applied to contracts made subsequent to its taking effect, is valid.
    
      !' APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of the • Countyof Santa Cruz. W. A. O’Connor, Judge.
    Affirmed.
    The facts are stated in the opinion.
    •Mr. Charles Blenman and Mr. S. L. Kingan, for Appellant.
    Mr. S. F. Noon and Mr. John B. Wright, for Appellee.
   PER CURIAM.

The facts in this case are on all-fours with the facts in Foltz v. Noon, ante, p. 410, 146 Pac. 510, just decided. The decision in that case is necessarily determinative of this ease.

Therefore the judgment is affirmed.