The Mason County journal. [volume] (Shelton, W.T.) 1886-1927, 1894-03-30
The LOggerS' Lien Decision.
Thos. Garneau and 40 others, Resp, VS.
Port Blakely Mill Co., Appellants.
E:1oI NToroL o. 1904

Thos. Garneau and AZ others, Resp, VS.
Port Blakely Mill Co., Appellants.
Filed March "a, 1894.
The loggers liens involved in this
case were filed for record in December,
1892; suit was brought the following
January, and the case was tried June
%, 1893.
Pending the hearing the legislature
passed new act on the subiect,
which went into effect before the trial.
Laws of 1898, p 42S, Section 81 of
this act repealed all acts and parts
of acts inconsistent with it's provi-
siOns, and contained no saving clause
covering existing undetermined liens.
The appellant, which was brought
into foreclosure action as a party
having or claiming to have some in
terest in or claim to the logs, and
against whom an alternative personal
Judgment was rendered, takes the
ground that as the right to lien of
this kind is wholly statutory, it is a
remedy only, and therefore ceased to
exist when the law under which it ac-
crued was repealed. The respondents
maintain that it is more than a mere
remedy, and is in the nature of a
vested right, because the law became
Il part of the contract under which
they went to work and gave the prin-
cipal defendant credit for their wages,
SO that the right to maintain and
foreclose the lien, if necessary to their
payment, could not be taken away by
the legislature. They also argue that
the new statute is mere continual
ton of the former one no the same
subject, having in view only pros
pective operation, and that it is not
inconsistent with any of it's provisions
to sustain the binding force of an ex-
listing lien, although it's foreclosure
may have to be accomplished under
the procedure prescribed by the new
law. The question has been decided
both ways by the courts of different
states, the leading authorities holding
that the right of lien is a mere remedy
being: authorities cited in original
opinion.
But it seems to us that a fair di.
stinction can be drawn between those
rights of lien which are conceded to
be purely remedies, such as attach
ments, judgment liens and the like,
and mechanics liens in this: that
parties do not make ordinary con-
tracts with a view to the particular
means provided for their enforcement,
whereas, at common law, one perform.
Ing labor upon chattel has an i'm
piled lien upon it for the value of his
services so long as it remains in his
possession. 1t would not be a very
TAR stretch of the common law lien to
eXtendit over logs, which are chattels,
and 1T is not impossible that such a
lien might now exist were it mot that
IN the nature of the thing logs are of
such character that possession can
No >f
ness of logging progress. But in a
country like ours, where the logging
business is principal industry. it is
the interest of the public that that
business be fostered, as it is, also, that
the men who perform labor in that
business have some secure means of
collecting their wages. Therefore the
Statutes have expressly extended the
laborers right of lien at the common
law to this class of personal property,
also, and given practically the same
remedies for its enforcement, D1utntis
Doltta11dis as the builder of car
rlage, the mender of watch, or any
other artisan has in reference to the
thing which he creates or repairs.
Since these laws have been in force
we have no doubt that the credit
which has been accorded to EMPLOYERS
by their men has been very largely
based upon the security which the lat
ter have counted upon through the
existence of their supposed right to
be paid out of the specific things
which they have created. When the
work is done through contractors, so
that the men have no contract rela-
ton with the owner of the chattel the
case is somewhat different, and new
principle is introduced which is exem-
plified in Streubel VS. r. Co., IL Wis.
"A, where laborers upon railroad con-
struction were given the right to sue
the railroad company for their wages