St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1888-11-23
LIENLAWS FOR MECHANICS
The Supreme Court Declares the Lucas
Act Unconstitutional.
IMPRISONMENT FOR DEBT.
Contention Will Be Avoided by the Fail
ure TO Enforce an Imperfect and
Obscure Statute.

|
framed and carried through the house
what is commonly known as the ms-
| chanics' lien law, chapter 10, General
Laws 1887. Yesterdays decision was
filed in the supreme conrt declaring it
to be unconstitutional, and wiping it en-
tireIy out OF existence. The validity of
the law was raised on two appeals
Herman l.. Meyer, appellant, VS.. VIII
liam Berlandi ct al, respondents; the
B0En Manufacturing Company respond
ent, VS.. Wesley j. Jameson ct al, ap.
pellants. Judge Mitchell dealt with
both suits, filing an exhaustive opinion,
and clearly demonstrating its unconsti-
tutional defects. He says: .1he cues
ton raised by these appeals is the va
lidity of chapter 10, General Laws 1887,
commonly known as the mechanics
lien law While this statute has been
several times before us for considera-
ton, this question has never before
been presented to the court. In the
present case the validity of the entire
act is ,assalled, mainly on the ground
that it is unconstitutional, but also that
it is so imperfect and incomplete as TO
be incapable of
BEING CARRIED INTO EFFECT.
cit therefore becomes necessary to con-
slider the whole act. At the outset we /
remark that ali examination of it fully
satisfies us that the act was intended to
and does cover the whole subject coy
cred by the former statute relating to
mechanics liens, having the same gen
eral purposes and touching the same
ground on every point, but materially
changing the legal rights of paLtieS and
adopting somewhat different method
nf
manifestly intended as a substitute for
the former statute, and as to all future
claims to be the only statute on the sub
ject. Therefore, if valid, it works a re-
peal of the old law, notwithstanding the
limited character of the repeating clause,
and hence there is no chance to supple
ment it with any of the pro-
visions of the former law. In
fact, the two statutes, MISUNDERSTANDING
the same general purpose of giving
liens to iaborerS and material men, work
Oh so different lines that there is hardly
a provision of the old law that will tit
into the new. An examination of the
act will also satisfy any lawyer that,
even if all its provisions are valid, it is
a very defective and incomplete skele-
lon, so badly lacking in details that it
would he very difficult to execute it ex-
ceDt by system of construction by the
courts bordering closely upon judicial
legislation. Many of its provisions, too,
are so obscure that much litigation
would necessarily occur before its con-
Struction would become settled.
But its incompleteneSS and ObScGrity
are not the most serious objections to
the act. Many of its provisions are
fatty i'll violation of the constitution.
The provision of the second section
giving lien Oh hOmeSteads is clearly
SO. 1t is we'll settled in this state that
homestead cannot be
MADE SUBJECT TO A LIEN
in the absence of an agreement between
the parties creating one.
Section 3. if not unconStitutio al
on other grounds, is clearly repugnant
to Section II, article l of the constitu-
ton OF the state, prohibiting imprison-
ment for debt 1t is not necessary that
a contractor be guilty of any fraud or
other tort in order to subject him to the
penalties Of this section. Ii he has re-
ceived his pay from the owner OF the
property and owes a debt due on con-
tract to one of his laborers OR material
men which he is unable to pay. he is
guilty OF obtaining money on false pre-
lenses and liable to punishment in
the penitentiary. No matter how
honestly he may have paid over the
last dollar which he has received on his
contract, yet, it through honest mistake
he took the job too cheap, or if by I'M
foreSeen accident it cost more than he
anticipated, and for that reason he can
not pay all that he owes for labor OF
material he is felon. This is return
ing with vengeance to the barbarouS
fiction upon which Imprisonment for
debt was originally based, VIZ: That
man who owed debt and didn't pay
was trespaSSer against the peace and
dignity of the crown, and for this super
stitiouS crime was liable TO arrest and
imprisonment. Such a statute can not
be sustained for moment.
''Section Of the act is also unconsti
tutional. AS liens are an incumbrance
upon the owners property, it is funda-
mental that they can only be created by
his consent OF authority. No man can be
DEPRIVED OF HIS PROPERTY
! without his consent or due process
of law. The basis of the right to en-
force claim as lien against property
is the consent of the owner, and it is
upon this principle alone that laws Civ
ing liens to subcOntract0rs are SuS-
tanned. The contract of the owner with
| the contractor is,under the law, the evil
dence of the authority of the latter to
| charge the property with liabilities in
CURED by him in performing this con-
! tract. The legislature seeming to have
| understood that such was the law, ap-
parently attempted to evade it by pro-
| Viding in section that the fact that the
person performing labor or furnishing
! material was not enjoined by law from
performing labor, or furnishing mate
| rial, by the person in whom the title
was vested at the time, shall be cOnclu-
| Sive evidence that such labor was per-
| formed, or material furnished, with
| and by the owners consent. In
| short, if willful trespasser
went upon the land of another
against his will or without his knowl
| edge, and erected building on it, and
| the owner of the land did not institute
| suit. give bonds and get out an in
| junction against the trespasSer, he
! consented to the erection of the build
ing, and his land would be subject to
| lien in favor of the trespasser, although
| the owner might be entirely ignorant of
| the trespass until after the building
| was erected. The bare statement of
| such proposition is sufficient. A man
| cannot be thus deprived of his property
| without his consent. The legislature
| may doubtless establish rules of evil
| denee, but to enact law making evil
| dence conclusive which is not so neces-
| ssarily in and of itself, and thus pre-
clude party from showing the truth,
would be nothing short of eonfiseation
| of property and destruction of vested
rights without due process of law.
''But perhaps the most Objectionable
| provision of this statute, and one that
| goes to its very substance, is found in
| the tenth section, which provides that