The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1894-04-01
pUCK" WAS NO AGENT
ulIiBg Mill Suit Against James
Street Line Fails.
|.aanlToN THE ONLY RESOURCE.
ke.are uanfosd Ruiss - De0nstisa Of
aessss- Isfornatien Against MeAalsy
Held Good-Ths Elossss.

In1nc30son Ii tHe C8So Oh bno racine Kohl
- Mil Company against. the James
{ ~ Construction Company and puck
fruniiton. which be heard In chamber
H1sdsssdsy and took under advissmsnt
p dscidsd that the mill company cannot
1neoyer from the construction companv
Nsevsaus Of the materials Hamilton bought
~ rssold 10 II, and cannot therefore fore
80 the lien on the James street cable
-. on tbs ground that Hamilton vas
nmviy . sub-contractor and could In no
~ - regarded ~ a agent under HUI
ude. The question whether q sub-cop-
x.esor could bind his superior and COM
- him 70 pay liens Of material men has
1iss an open one. Tho opinion in full Il
r. jellows:
i This 10 . suit in equity TO recover from
1c 1. Hamilton @. 73L2, being the BAL
i mee OF the purchase price Of N sterisis
"a and delivered by the Complainant Ia
nid Hamilton. to be used In the conssruc.
aoa OF the James street cable railway in
hattie, and 10 establish and forecloss 4
] easusofy lien upon said railw and the
spxes house and real estate connected
ihsfewish and sppurtenans thereto. Ham.
eson hes not been served with process nor
eppssred TO defend. The James Street
i Csastruction Company, owner Of the
wcperty upon which . lien 10 claimed.
I eont1sting the claim to . lien. Eyidence
i ead Arguments have bsen submitted in b.,
laH 81 the complainant and said defend
0k
As TO many Of the questions argued By
pansel have not formed definite con-
e.usion. Having found one fatal obiec-
non 70 the lien, IL IL not expedisnt for me
y pess upon or discuss the other points,
The statute of this state under which the
hAn is cisimed provides ~ follows:
aEvery PERSON performing labor upon or
1sTrtshing materials 70 be used In the constxuc-
Nes, alteration OF repair Of any mining claim.
bsicing. wharf. bridge, ditch, dyke. fiume, tnn.
asl. lsnee, machinery. railroad, wagon road.
ausduct 70 create hydraulic power, or any
ansf structure. or who perlotms labor In any
mae OF mining claim. has . Hen upon the
mns ios tho work or labor done or materials
/ isfnishsd BY each respectively whether done OF
1 iufntsned Es the Instance OF the owner of the
bg1ding or other improvement or his erent:
I'd every contractor, sub-c0utrsctor, architect
bsi!eef OF person having charge Of any mining
Of the construction. alteration or repair,
asess 70 whole or In part, OF any butidin. or
ahsr improvement, - sforssaid, shall be held
- Be the agent Of the owner for the purposss az
III chspssr. Il Hin's Code, section i.edz
"The vital defect which I find in the
complainant's case 10 in the failure TO show
that the materials were furnished BY IL At
The instance of the owner Of the cable rail-
Way. or any ageut Of the said owner. The
bill does not charge that the complainant
contracted with the owner directly. but on
the contrary AYERS that the materials we're
cold by It 70 Hamilton. and this avsrment
10 BY the evidence fully proven. It II
alleged that Hamilton was q contractor
With the owner and that the m ateriaIs
we're sold to him ~ such contractor.
This 10 not equivalent to charg.
ING that he was an authorized
agent of the owner OF the cable rail way
property upon which . lien IL claimed. un-
less the law constitutes every person who
contracts to supply material for Q new
structure an agent Of the owner. do
lot. however. intend to rest my decision
upon q strict construction Of the plead.
tngA Upon the merits Of the case. con.
sdering the law and the evidence, 1 hold
that Hamilton was not actually nor con-
sffuctively an agent of tho owner of this
cable railway property for any purpose
whatever. He did not contract with said
owner. but on the contrary refused 70 deal
vith the company both before and after
buying the materials. He did not enter
into contract In writing with
tho acting manager OF the company
In his individual capacity 70 self
and deliver the materials to him, and at
the time of delivering the bills Of iadine
for said materials required ~ q condition
Of said delivery that said manager should
Individually sign negotiable promissory
note. which was given in payment for pa re
Of the purchase price. After entering into
said contract with the manager to cell 10
him specified materials Hamilton bought
the same from the complainant. The ma
ierials were by Hamilton's direction
shipped consigned tn said manager. but
the bills Of lading we're sent to a bank in
eeattic, accompanied by draft for the
BIN. Upon delivery of the bill OF iadina
be received from said manager SOFAS ia
cash and . negotiable note for - $50 SIS.
having unpaid $500 to cover any shortage
that might be discovered In the shipment,
and took up the draft by paying to tho
bank 81. 1881 In cash and giving ms noes
ior the same amount, tho bank receiving
payment In that manner under instruc-
tons from the complainant These tran
That the owner OF the cable rail-
say property voluntarily made
Hamilton its agent He had
no charge or control Of the work OF con-
structlng the cable railway or any part Of
IL The most that can be claimed a. to his
eonnection with the owner 10 that he was
asue-contracsor for supplying part OF the
materials required for constructing the
cable railway. The complainant's whole
sse statute constitutes . person holding
snch relation 20 an owner of a new struct-
nfe an agent, with authority to subject
she structure TO 4 lien for the price Of ma
hr,sis sold to him. In the statute under
eoasidcration the words contractor and
suh-eontractor are each used ~ one
Ola gronr or class of words each Of which
ordinarily and prima facie under
STOOD To be descriptive of . person
aasing the charge or superintendence Of
eonstraction work, and the enumeration
concludes with the general phrase, or
srson having charge OF any mining or Of
we construction. alteration or repair.
aIher IN whole or in part, OF any building
% ether improvement which appl!es 70
III the persons enumerated and Quaiiftes
each with the same certainty As If the
words 1T The general phrase were inserted
and repeated between each OF the words.
buiiaer.'
Therefore. according TO . well defined
!sis Tor constituting statutes. suh-cou-
rsetor TO he an agent Of tue owner of any
esi!dsng or other improvement by virtue
o. 'h's statute, must be one having charge,
70 Whole or IN part. OF the constructors,
alteration or repair thereof. United States
Chase, iSS L. s, as. To 50 conssrne
ta's statute as to make = mere vendor OF
materials tho agent OF his vendee's vendees
VIA authority 10 charge tho property OF
sss latter with a lien in favor OF his
vendor. would be extremely unreason-
ACE. Hence my conclusion that as Hanall-
va dld not have charge of any part OF the
aose railway. he Was not IN agent Of the
ewner OF il.
The James Street Construction Conn.,
vsny has paid the full value Of the ma
se'aais 20 one who owned them and had
asiGl right 10 sell them and receive said
payment md no ground for justly re-
curing IL - paw again. The hlIi IL dis
asset with Costs HANrnHn