The union Democrat., 1871-10-21
The Mechanics Lien Law.

The San Francisco Bulletin makes the fol-
lowing notice of late decision wherein the
law was pronounced unconstitutional.
According to the provisions of the Mechan-
les lien law, a person giving contract Tor
the erection of building is held responsible
for the paynent of the bills of material FUR
nished, to whatever amount the contractor
chooses to involve him. The ostensibie merit
of the law is that il secures material men
for whatever TIE contractor may order. as the
owner of the building is held liable therefor.
The practical working Of the law is that the
contractor is enabled 10 purchase material to
ala unlimited amount, even in excess OF the
full cost of the building; and whether pur-
chased a: reasonable figure or at three or
four times the value. the owner of the build
ing is held responsible therefor. The qnsS-
ton of the conS,tutionaiity of the law has
been raised several tunes in court. but has
never until now cone squarely up for deci-
sion. Judge McKinssry of the Twelfth Dis
trict Court decided the question in substance
some months ago, in the case of Knowles VS.
SAWYER. which was similar case 10 the one
just decided. The question was also touched
upon in the Fifteenth District Court some
weeks ago, when Judge Dwinslle in,imated
shat The c6nstitutionality of the law was very
questionable.
A case has just been decided in the Twelfth
District Court which settles the point. 1t
was brought hy f. Whittier and Others as
suh-contractars against q. w. WILDER ard
others as original contractors, j. w. Tucker
and others owners, and sundry other ina
terial men, for the purpose of enforcing n
mechanics lien upon the Tucker building on
Post street. The contract provided that there
shoald be no liens, and the original contrac-
tors for themselves and all persons under
them waived the right to claim lien
Plaintiffs claimed that notwithstanding the
contract they could recover as against the
owners of the property the full amount of the
value of the materials furnished hy thea, irI
respective of the question whether this ex-
ceeded the contract price, or whether the full
contract price had been paid before thew
furnished their materials or did their work.
Defendants consended that the lien law of
1868. which pretends to give this right to
material men, was unconstitutional {: and.
further. that under the terms of the contract
plaintiffs could not recover irrespective of
constitutonality.
The case was called for trial, and motion
was made for judgment on behalf of the own
ers as against plaintiffs and their co-defend-
ants, the "materal men," The inotion was
argued by Holiday and Weeks for the plain
titfs. and Iarboe, Harrison and Robinson for
defendants.
Judge McKins.ry held that so much of the
law of 1868 as purporfs to give material
men" a lien for more than the contract price,
was unconstitutional, and granted the motion
of Tucker and others for Judgment. which
was entered, in their favor accordingly.
This decision was based on Section |, Arti-
Gle l, of the Constitution of the State. which
declares that ''amoug the inalienable rights
of citizens are those of acquiring, possessing
and protecting property" fine court held
that if the contractor could by fraud, under
this lien law, compel the owners to pay more
than the stipulated contract price, it would
he in fact taking away his property without
due process of law, and would, therefore, be
in conflict with the Constitution
This decision, together with others which
have preceded it, show the utter folly of the
legislation that has been had upon the sub
ject of mechanics liens. By four special acts
of the Legislature it has been attempted to
give material men" the right to recover
from the owner more than the contract price
All of these attempts have been defeated,
either by the decision of the District or Su-
preme Court.