, 1883-11-22
Weekly Argus.
Judge Greene on the Lien Law,


Townsend Mil Company.
oIISIoN.
Several questions We're submitted
upon the hearing of this case, yester-
day, the most important Of which,
and the one deserving primary con
sideratiou. Is the constitutional one
This constitutional objection. that
there must some amount appear to
be due to the contractor, before ma
terials and labor, furnished at his in
stance. can be held a foundation for
amechanics' lien. would seem to be
considered sound IN California. %
Cal, lS5 and J.
Our legislature. however, in $l966
OF our Code, has clearly indicated a
contrary mind Reason sides with
our legislature 1t Is no more an III
vasion of constitutional right to de
clare by statute that a man shall not
employ contractor without running
the hazard of certain liabilities, than
it is TO declare by statute that man
shall not employ labor or material
on or about his property without run
ming the hazard of certain liabilities.
Indefinite liabilities are made posi-
BILE, whenever a general agent Is en-
ployed. By the lien law, a contractor
Is made the general agent of the own
er to the extent and for the purpose
of engaging materials and labor. II
the owner does not want TO have INN
self involved by such an agent, he
need not employ a contractor,
hn .,,,,-t 4alv, E-hnr,n no
ploys, or he must provide beforehand
an indemnity. The law does not pro
pose, nor operate, to take away any
substantial right man has, of ac-
quiring, owning or dispOsing Of his
own, nor trench upon the right to
liberty or pursuit of happiness. 1t
merely regulates the exercise of
rights. No end is sought by the reg
ulation but what is good, and the
regulation does not run beyond its
proper end. 1t only reaches out to
prevent an owner, who might be dis
posed to deprive q labOrer or materl-
altman of lien protection, from at
tanning that result by the device OF
slipping in contractor between him
self and the materialman or labOrer.
1t does not preclude the owner from
building, nor does it unreasonably re
strict him in regard thereto, but ii
simply apprises him that if he will
employ a contractor he must, at his
peril, either select one whom he can
trust as agent, or else secure himself
in some other way.
The law does not foist upon him a
contractor. 1t does not say he must
employ one, nor does it prescribe
that he shall only employ one whom
another nominates. But for reasons
of sound public policy, it provides
that one of the various measures
which formerly lie might have made
use of to limit his expenditure, shall
not hereafter be so at his disposal as
njuriously to affect the rights of
others.
When added but unpaid for labor
Oh, material goes to swell the value of
property, there is equity in holding
that the owner of the labor or mate
rial, as we'll as the owner Of the prop
erty, should have proprietary rights
in the aggregate, until some sort OF
adjustment and satisfaction of then
respective contributions to that ag-
gregate can be had Laying tradi-
tional views and us2ges ASIDE, and
looking at the situation fairly, as
if it were a new one, there is no more
reason to regard the original owner
OF the property as the owner
of the added increment OF labor OF
material, than there is to regard the
contributor of labor or material as
the owner of the property to which
he has made an accretion.
a priori, it were as palpable an in
fringement Oh the laborer's proprie-
tary right in the product of his labor
for the owner of the premises tC
which it is added to claim an abso
lutte property in it himself, as i
would be for the laborer to claim, by
reason of his labor, an absolute prop
srty in the premises, the value o
which he has enhanced
Whenever the premises of one are
at his instance, improved by the la
Dor or materials of another, abso
lutte proprietary rights of the respect
i've owners meet and mlngle, by
minglng of the properties, without
destruction of either of the right!
but with qualification of both. Thi
is equity and this equity underlie:
and sustains the lien laws.
AS regards the adjustment anC
satisfaction of the respective claims
of laborer or material-man and owner
the lien laws are no less equitable
decides whether he will have labor o
material expended thereon, and t,
what amount, in what direction ant
with what Judgment and taste. If il
fact, in any case, he does not contro
that matter, it is his own fault. Wit
him resides the power. Therefore
under the law, he cannot throw tn
burden of his own recklessness, eX
travagance, bad judgment or ba,
taste on the laborers or material
men, and insist that they shall clai1
out of the whole property no NOR
than on a fair valuation and analyst
of the aggregate would appear to b
justly attributable to the labor ant
materials they have bestowed. H
Is estopped from asserting that in tn
aggregate the labor and material
are not still represented up TO thei
OIlSIhdi iSeASOudDle VI SS1eSO NdIut
Hence the law very justly provides
that laborers and material-men shal
have right against that aggregat
to press their proprietary claims t
the full. Whether their claims ma,
have arisen through the Intervention
of an agent or a contractor shoult
make no difference. The owner
with the law before him, has under
taken and guided his Improvement
Willingly.
Passing to the questions of fac
which are raised upon the pleadinga
] find from the evidence:
1st- That the amount claimed b.
the plaintiff in the complaint is III
fair and reasonable value of the worl
and materials furnished.