The Nevada Democrat., 1856-12-10
Mechanics Lien Law.

IL has heretofore DeeH uuuei snc Pi"'ASN"S "
our laws. Since 1850, three distinct enactments
have been placed upon the statute book. Two
of them, that of 1850 and 1855, proved so de-
fective, and gave rise to 80 much confusion, as
to call for amendment, and as the nature Of
these defects were plainly revealed by their
operation, it was expected that any further
amendment would secure the object sought to
be attained. Whether the law Of the last ses-
sion has perfected our process and is so devised
as to put an end to the confusion which has
attended the former enactments, is yet to be
tested In examining the law of 1856 we have
been led to doubt that it has cured the features
of the preceding bill in one essential point, and
if so, the question has suggested itself whether
it may not produce other embarrassments Of
equal magnitude.
It is well known that so much of the act of
May 10th 1853, entitled ian act concerning the
courts of Justice of this State and judicial Off
cers'' as conferred upon the County Court juris-
diction aud power to "enforce the liens OF me-
chanics and Others" fell under the decision of
the Supreme Court 1t was there held that the
special cases in which the County Court might
be vested with original jurisdiction we're such
only as are the creation Of statute, and unknown
to the general framework of the common law
and equity. The remedy however in those ca
scs over two hundred dollars was not destroyed
by this decision. The jurisdiction of the Dis
trct Court by virtue of its equity powers was
still ample to enforce the lien above that amount,
but under the sum of two hundred dollars there
were no courts capable of taking cognzance of
Peace. 1t was never contended that the power
belonging to these courts were such as to war
rant them in enforcing remedy of the nature
of an equity proceeding and therefore the law
as il affected the liens under two hundred dol
lars was a nullity. The last Legislature was
looked to, to correct this evil. The language
of the statute of 1856 however comforting juris-
diction is not at all changed, and we are still
left to all the doubts and uncertainties which
perplexed the proceedings under the former
laws. But supposng that it be competent for
these inferior courts to take jurisdiction, and
enforce the lien under the limited amount, there
is another difficulty which is likely to arise, and
should be guarded against by some salutary
provision. The seventh section of the act of
1856 prescribing the mode of proceeding to be
pursued for enforcing any lien reads as follows:
"Said liens may be enforced by suit in any
court Of competent jurisdiction on setting forth
in the complaint the particulars of such demand
with description Of the premises sought to be
charged with said lien and if the same shall be
established by the Judgment of the court, then
it shall be the duty of the court to cause a no
tice to be published for at least ten days in
some newspaper published in the county notify
ing all persons holding or claiming liens on
said premises, to be and appear in said court on
a day to be therein specified and to exhibit
then and there the proof of said liens. On as
certaining the whole amount of said liens with
which the said premises are Justly chargeabe as
hereinbefore provided, the court shall cause
said premises to be sold in satisfaction of said
liens &c."
How the notice is to operate where the same
piece of property is liable for several different
demands, some above and some under two hun
dred dollars, 1t is not eaSy to conjecture II is pos
sible that at the day and hour when those having
liens over two hundred dollars, in compliance
with the law, one in the District Court exhibit
ing their claims, and the proof thereof that 9th
ers may be in the office of some Justice making
the same proof with reference to claims under
that amount. Under this state of facts, which
court is to order the sale of the premises and
to make the distribution.