The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1893-11-29
'Ij8GERS' LIEN LAW.
vi1lature Made No Provision
fcr Existing Claims
|1sDso OF CASHIER ATKINS.
RvSlence for the 0evsrDDsnt-
s. asleesd Cosspirsey--slsses Hssss
eeeeitng Csse-Ths Blsttsr.

x.e,sion. and one Of great interest 70
- and mill men especially, Was
1870 rendered by Judge Baiisnger in
- - In equity of N. J. Nordrum and
-. ether loggers against j. w. Perkins
~ - Port Biskelsy Mill Company.
J -. nusstlon was raised on the subject OF
i. obstruction OF the ioggers' lien Law
2 - and 10 one upon which no decision
!. ~ supreme court and bus few b. the
.,.r,ior courts Of tho state. have been
nedesd.
- fects In the case we're that some time
e. ~ Nordrum and the other plaintiffs
-, employed by Perkins to set out saw
-. About 5000 worth wers cut and
! - 20 the Port Blakeiey Mil Company's
IN and there sold by Perkins. who re-
I'D payment without releasing the
-.npeuy. a was the usual custom, the
Esrfsseht being the fault Of subordinate
- Hss not familiar with his duties.
|rukins failed to pay the employees, and
- brought the suit to foreciose liens
a.ou the logs amounting 70 s9i9. The
/ 1skndsns Perkins allowed 3 defsuit to
= txken against him. The mill company
6urht the case, however, and il was
/ irought to an issue last fall.
Subsequently the legislature. which was
nsr In session, passed the ioxger's lien
~ Of 1893. When the case was called
vussrslay the attorneys for ths mill COM
seny objected to the introduction Of svi-
fenes By the plaintiffs on the ground that
shey hsd no longer any cause Of action.
ne points made by them were two: The
Int vas that the PLAINTIFF claim oflien
~ an inchoate right. not . perfected
md vested one, and one which was not
isngible. The second. that iogger's lien
Ian Of 1888, covering the same ground ~
chat Of 1895, but In . more complste man.
per, superseded and repealed IL. The i'm
perfected right Of the plaintiffs acquired
undsr it was therefore lost, not having
hsen reduced to judgment before the re-
pal. and the later act making no pro-
yIsion for the preservation Of such In.
iangible rights.
The PLAINTIFF attorney maintained that
ne right of his clients had become vested
~ the fact that the case was ct issue
shen the law Of 1893 was passed and could
bos, therefore, be taken away without due
peocess Of law. But the old Law. he mann
mined, had not been repealed, bat had
merely become merged in the new law.
This being true. the right Of his clients.
svsn II inchoate, were continued in fall
tescs under the law 30 merged. The OBJ
tpctions were argued ct length, the Judge
spsnding the whole day In listening TO
authorities. The authorities plainly held
h support OF the objections. but on the
sthsr side the section Of the code regard
Ing the construction Of the statutes
seemed to hold that the objection on the
ground Of the repeal Of the old Law could
not be maintained.
Judge Ballinger. In brief decision, held
hat both objections would have to b
Maintained - % pported BY the weight Of
nnthority, and that the old Law being
tvspt away BY the new. al claims Of lien
~ reduced 10 Judgment were also swept
ssay. The common Law right to sue for
wages alone remained. In conclusion he
I'D:
Il regret that have to hold that the
legislature, which intended TO make more
perfect law, should have omitted TO make
sny provision for existing claims, but IL IL
not question of expedicncy. but Of exact
hw."
s The decision. Of course. determines the
ease in the lower court. but an appeal will
q once be taken 10 the supreme court. In
eenversation last night Judge Bailinger
said that he had never decided case when
be was compelled TO 20 so directly con-
t,sry TO his convictions, and that he would
Ne heartily glad If he should be reversed.