The Mason County journal. [volume] (Shelton, W.T.) 1886-1927, 1894-03-30
when the contractors who employed
them failed to pay them.

L TIC odiIC pllhClp1O, 40 W. NA'OA
stand the case, was upheld in Steam
ship CO. VS. Jolife, 2 Wall, $50. In
both cases mentioned it was held that
the repeal of the statute did not de-
stroye the quasi contract under
which the right of action accrued.
Upon the authority of the latter case,
in the main, ReHope Mining Co.
supra, was decided, sustaining labor
ers lien upon mining works after the
substitution of a new act which re-
pealed all former laws on the subject.
Handel VS. Elliott, supra, sustains the
view we have taken and cites the prin-
cipal cases on the subject.
We hold, therefore, that the right
to lien was a part of the laborers
contract, and was not affected by the
substitute law of 1898.
2. The complaint alleged the ap-
pellant to be corporation organized
and existing under the laws of this
state, and it's only answer was a gen.
eral denial. A defendant corporation
cannot appear generally in an action
and afterwards complain that there
was no affirmative proof of its corpo-
rate existence.
3. The law required that the lien
notice should be filed in the County
where the logs were cut, and this was
matter that should not have been
left to inference and presumption upon
the trial There was no reason in the
world why some one of the many wit
nesses examined should not have
stated the blunt fact that these logs
were cut in Mason County. But this
commission, which was doubtless a
mere inadvertence, owing to the fact
that new decree must be entered,
will not be permitted to defeat the
action.
4. Although some of the lienors,
who are unlettered men, stated that
they were employed by "the Mala-
neys" or "Malaney Brothers," it sat-
isfactorily appeared that the real en-
ployer was the Washington Improve
ment Company, whose agents to man.
age the logging business the Malaneys
were
5. Objection is made that the
County Auditor was not authorized
to administer oaths until 1898, and
that therefore the verifcation of all
these liens, which was made before
him, was void. County Auditors were
invested with the power to admins
ter oaths by Sec. PIT Code 1881, and
this law remained in force under the
Constitution, although tie Auditor
was not mentioned as County Off
Ger in the article on County organi-
zation. All laws were. continued in
force, and all officers were continued
in office under sections 2 and of the
Schedule. The Salary act of 1890,
Laws p 3O2, did not create the office
County Auditor, but merely fixed the
salary of All existing officer. The act
of 1893, Up 1922 expressly recognized
and amended Sec 2717 of Code of 1881.
6. The original notices of lien
were in numerous instances admitted
by the Court to show compliance with
the statute in the matter of filing.
Each of these notices was endorsed
thus: l certify that the within in
strument was filed for record in the
Auditors Office of Mason County, by
(here follows the name of the party
filing, the date and hour and that it
is recorded in Volume of Lien Re-
cords of said County. on page (oi
Volume and page given.)
(Auditors SeaD ]. w. Day, Auditor
Mason County, Wash.
This presents a different case from
any heretofore considered by this court
The statement of the certificate is as
full as it could be made, and the cues
ton is whether under any circum-
stances, such certificate is to be ia
ken as proving the fact of filing and
record. Appellants contention is that
only certified copy can be used for
such purpose, but the statute cited
does not bear out the position. G. s.
5000 makes certified copies of records
prima facie evidence, but it does not
declare that nothing else shall be evil
decce An original deed ought, in rea-
son, to be as competent as copy. and
we have yet to ascertain that an origi-
nal has been rejected. The object
sought to be accomplished by the res
pondents in this case was two-fold
first, that they had certified proposed
claim or notice of lien; secondly, that
it had been filed fer record in the
proper Office The original shows the
contents of the instrument and its
certification even better than copy
and it is only left to be determined
whether the certificate OF the Auditor
that this particular instrument has
been fled for record and rnoordoa :.