Case ID: ohio-st_37/html/0075-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Okey, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Hart v. Globe Iron Works.
    Under an agreement with one engaged in manufacturing on premises of which he had a lease for two years, a mechanic furnished and attached to the manufactory certain machinery to be used in the prosecution of the business; after which the tenant made a general assignment of his property for the benefit of his creditors: Held, that this did not interfere with the right of the mechanic to perfect a mechanics’ lien under the act of 1843 (1 S. & 0.833); and that the lien will extend to such machinery.
    Error to the District Court of Cuyahoga County.
    The Roberts Manufacturing Company was a corporation engaged at the city of Cleveland, in the manufacture of wooden ware. The manufactory was situated on lots Nos. 122 and 124 Elm street. The corporation had a written lease on the premises, dated January 1, 1875, and expiring December 31, 1876, and had the right, at the expiration of the term, or before, to remove from the building all machinery and fixtures, but had no right to remove the building. The Globe Iron Works, a partnership, under a contract with the corporation, furnished for and attached to such building, in proper condition for use in said business, a boiler, smoke-stack, and certain machinery, and on August, 5,1875, made an attested account of the things so furnished and attached, and filed it with the county recorder, for the purpose of perfecting a mechanics’ lien.
    On August 4, 1875, the day preceding that on which such account was filed, the Roberts Manufacturing Company, being in failing circumstances, made a general assignment of all its property for the benefit of its creditors, to Arlington M. Hart, who, on August 17, 1875, filed a petition in the court of common pleas of Cuyahoga county to obtain a judgment declaring that such mechanics’ lien was invalid. Issue was joined, trial had, and judgment rendered; and thereupon the cause wTas appealed to the district court. In the district court judgment was rendered in favor of the Globe Iron Works for the amount of its account, with interest, $1,114. This sum Hart, the assignee, was ordered to pay out of the moneys in his hands.
    While the cause was pending, it was agreed by the parties that the assignee should sell the machinery and fixtures in the manufactory, and that whatever lien the Globe Iron Works had on the property should be transferred to the fund arising from such sale. Such sale was accordingly made, and the proceeds thereof amounted to $2,700. The rentable value of the leased premises was no greater than the rent payable under the lease, and the lease was not sold by the assignee, nor was it considered of any value.
    On application of Hart, the assignee, leave was granted to file in this court a petition in error.
    
      Henderson & Kline, for plaintiff in error.
    
      Otis, Adams & Russell and E. P. Blickensderfer, for defendant in error.
   Okey, J.

When a proper construction is given to the act of 1843, “ to create a lien uin favor of mechanics,” etc. (41 Ohio L. 66; 1 S. & C. 833; Nev. Stats. §§ 3184-3206), the rights of the parties’to this suit will be determined. The provisions of the mechanics’ lien laws of the various states are so widely different that the decisions of the courts of one state are, as a general rule, very unsafe guides for the courts of another state on this subject. The act of 1843 has, however, been repeatedly under consideration in this court, and the construction the statute has received renders the decision of this case a task of littledifficulty.

Where the articles with respect to which the lien is asserted are furnished continuously, as in this case, such lien dates from the time the first article is furnished, and it is as impossible for the debtor to defeat the lien by an assignment for the benefit of creditors as by a sale of the property. The interest of 'the assignee therein is not greater than the interest which the assignor had, though the assignee is entitled to possession for the purpose of converting the property into money. Lindemann v. Ingham, 36 Ohio St. 1. Nor can the fact that the account of machinery furnished had not been prepared until after the assignment had been made, affect the rights of the parties. The lien was in all respects as effectual at and after the time the assignment was made as it had been before. Filing the verified account with the county recorder simply prevented the lien from being barred by the limitation of four months provided for in the statute.

The assignee claims, however, that this is an attempt on the part of the Globe Iron Works to obtain a mechanics’ lien on personal property. But the lien may be asserted as well against a leasehold, a chattel interest, as against real estate (Choteau v. Thompson, 2 Ohio St. 114; Dutro v. Wilson, 4 Ohio St. 101); and where a mechanic agrees with one in possession as tenant of real estate, under a lease like this, to furnish machinery and attach it to a building on the leased premises, to be used by such tenant in carrying on manufacturing in the building, such machinery, when so attached, becomes so much a part of the leasehold that the mechanics’ lien will extend to the machinery. Here the agreement was that the tenant should have the right, at the expiration of, or during the term, to remove such fixtures, but this did not affect the mechanics’ rights. It does not distinctly appear how the machinery was attached to the building, but probably the tenant would have had the right of removal without the agreement. Teaff v. Hewitt, 1 Ohio St. 511. Nor are the rights of the parties affected by the fact that the interest of the tenant in the building and ground was not sold by the assignee, being considered of no value. The things which, by being annexed to the building, had become an appurtenance of the leasehold, and a part thereof for the purposes of such lien, were sold, and the mechanic was entitled to payment of his judgment out of the fund arising from such sale.

Judgment affirmed.