Butte semi-weekly miner. [volume] (Butte, Mont.) 1886-1890, 1889-10-12
THE LIEN LAW VALID.
An Important Opinion by the
Supreme Court of
Montana.
Actors Inspect a Mine-lnger-
soils Chances - Heavy
Bullion Shipments.

From Wednesday Dsily.
Last Saturday the Montana suprem,
court, Bach j., handed down an opinion il
the case Of John MerrIgan VS.. Lydia En-
glish. That case was ON OF the enforce
ment OF mechanics lien and the court O.
last resort affirmed the decision OF the
courtsbelow. The Helena Independent Of
yesterday reviews the case as follows:
THAT opinion is OF much Importance &c
the laborers and mechanics OF Montana,
Last fall Judge Mcconnell rendered an
opinion on the Gaze, upholding the mechan.
les lien law. A few months ago Judge
Blake refused to grant q new trial aud sus.
tanned the opinion Of Judge Mcconnell. An
appeal to the supreme court was taken. the
result being that the views Of the lower
court were sustained, though the latter
opinion is very elaborate and brings ont
some new points not heretofore known.
The lien law was introduced by William
Thompson, OF Silver Bow, in the legislature
OF 1887.
MRS. English contracted with the Home
Building and Investment company for the
construction OF o. residence. The company
sub.let the contract to a man who left the
country before the building VAS finished.
The company had q mortgage on the prop
erty. The plaintiff in the case is a plasterer
who brought suit against Mrs. English for
his pay. She refused to pay as she had
already paid the sub.contractor through
her agents 1.-THE building company the full
cost OF construction.
The decision OF the supreme court is
very long and is given in five points. The
main points, condensed are as follows:
First, that the mechanics lien law OF
1917 ia vaIiI aud uixyao 30 rnacho.s 40
or laborer, or other person who performs
any work or furnishes any material for or
upon any building, a direct lien without re-
gard to whether he had o contract with the
owner OF the building or with some con-
tractor Under him. Also without regard
to whether the owner knew of his employ
ment or not 80 long as he can prove he did
the work under q contract with some au-
thorized person.
Second, that the law is constitutional.
This question was brought up by the at
torReys for the plaintiff. e
"Third, that the homestead exemption
cannot be successfully raised against the
lien Of q mechanic or lsborer. Also, that
the homestead law OF Montana not being
taken from California, the California de-
cisions are not bin ling in their interpreted
tion Of our laws.
"The fifth point is that q mortgage
recorded after the commencement OF work
on q building CT other structure is subse-
quent and subject TO the heirs OF
any mechanic, laborer or material
man for work, labor or material
done, performed or furnished at any
time during the construction OF the
building or other structure, SO that il any
body does any work around a building to
perfect his completion his claim would have
prestige over any mortgage that had been
filed after any work had been done upon
the building.
'Tn all events the laboring man must re-
ceive his pay. The result OF this decision is
that Mrs. English will have to pay twicefor
her building. No bond was secured from the
sub-contractor, and for this carelessness the
owner OF the building ia made to suffer.
This important decision forever settles the
validity OF the lien law"