Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1896-07-17
OUR HIGHEST COURT.
OPINIONS HANDED DOWN AT
wyrHEvrLLE YESTERDAY.
An Interesting Case Involving the
Assignment of ~ Mechanics Lien
penI Estate Dccision-Tfpstnh for
Richmond Elected.

ed down in the Supreme Court OF Appears
to-day:
Bristol Iron and Steel Company VS..
Thomas, assignee. and others. and the
FIat-Top Coal and Coke Association vs.
Thomas. assignee, and others. From the
Musings Court OF the city Of Radford'
Opinion by Judge Keith. Affirmed.
This is a bill filed by Thomas as assignee
OF Witherow to enforce a mechanics lien
for work done and material furnished In
the construction OF a blast furnace for
the Bristol Iron and steel Company. The
only question OF interest In the record is
as follows:
After Witherow had done n large
amount Of work under his contract. he
found himself unable 10 complete 1t, aDd
assigned the dement's OF this contract,
and the money due under IL, TO THOMAS
Tor the payment Of his debts. Thomas
went on 10 complete the structure. and
fiea n mechanics lien under sections
2fT5 and 2i76 of the Code TO secure what
was due. The question submitted for de-
cision is as 10 the asSignability or the
mechanics lien. That the lien. when per
fected, may be assigned, was not ais
puted. The question presented IS as 10
the right OF the assignee 10 90 tne acts
prescribed in section 2i16 in order TO per-
feet the inchoate lien conferred by section
2f75. II is believed that the point before
us, said the Court. has not been deciueu
by this court and the decisions IN other
States are divided upon II. 1t fs held
that as a general rule, all contractual
rights are assignable; that man may
authorize another 10 do for him whatever
he. himself, may lawfully do; that an
assignment carries with II all liens gwen
10 secure the demand assigned; that the
statute creating the lien being silent as
to its assignability, this court IS az
liberty TO adopt that construction, which
commends itself as reasonable and just
OBJECT OF THE LAW.
The object of the law in creating liens
in favor of mechanics was TO secure 10
deserving class of men the fruits OF tneir
labors. The statute upon the subject IS
remedial in its nature. and while courts
require n strict compliance with all that
the statute prescriDes for the complexion
or perfection of the lien and cannot, by
construction supply any failure or omis-
sion upon the part OF the claimant, ana
TO this extent may be said TO place
strict construction upon the statute as
being an innovation upon the common
law vet. when the mechanic has done all
which IL is necessary for him TO 90, hau
performed the work or supplied the ma
terial. and perfected his. lien therefor IN
the prescribed mode, the duty or Inc
courts is 10 see that those. whom the
law intends TO protect shall ENJOY the
advantages which 1t confers our statute
law as IL now stands, cannot be justly
criticised as unduly favoring those for
whose benefit ii was enacted. II merely
serves to secure 70 them the result OF
toll and capital, and while doing justice
10 them infiicts no injustice upon any,
ard should therefore. be fairly. II not
literally interpreted. To deny the holder
Of the inchoate mechanics lien the rght
10 assign the lien given by section 30
would greatly diminish the value OF the
benefit conferred upon those enumerated
in that section. In case OF death or m
ability from any cause 70 coinpiete ms
contract he would lose the fruit or his
toll. as. by denying 10 him the faculty
OF perfectng the lien he would pc ue-
priyed of the only mode by which ms
compensation could be secured. ii ne -
incapable Of comforting upon another Ny
his voluntary act of assignment the power
Of perfecting the inchoate lien his repre-
ecntatlvcs. in the event of his death,
would be equally impotent.
REAL-EsTATE CASE.
Dudley and others VS.. Miners Execu-
tors and others From the Circuit Court
OF Roanoke county Reversed. Opinion by
NE complainants filed their bill in
.auity for relief from the payment OF GER
raiu notes on which they had been sued at
law. on the ground that tue notes had
been executed for the payment OF rSal
estate, and were procured lIoil treih -
false and fraudulent representations, ana
were null and void, and upon othsr
,.rounos which they claimed entitled them
10 make their defense In . enauityi ana ma
law be restrained from further prosecuting
IRE Injunction was granted, but the
court on q motion 10 dissolve. required
m conlplainants TO confess judgment IN
the suits at law during the term OF the
court. or the injunction should De us
solved. 49,, .,,o,ror.s
came into a court OF equity denying any
indebtedness whatever ana the iisht Oh
the plaintiff in the suits AT Jaw 10 re-
cover upon the notes In any form, either
in
1hem to confess judgment IN the suns d.
law and that the court should not nav
so required as condluon OF ine Doit o,ie.,,
ance OF the injunction. Second, that even
IN n were a proper case for the require
ment OF confession OF judgment III .le
suits at law. the court should not nave r. r.,
ouired the confession TO be uncondllloh.e,ilS
MADE hut should have expressly provided
I'm it's order that the Judgment so coniesstsu u
were thereafter to be dealt with as inc
courf of equity might direct
Rigs VS.. Ellison Development Compah, (.
ISron1 the Circuit Court Of Montgomeiy
county. Reversed Opinion by Judge
franklin VS.. Salem Building Associa-
tion From the Circuit Court Of Roanoke
county. Affirmed. opinion by Judge
Rely. ~ ,,,.o,,,,
Court of Craig county. Affirmed. OPINION
by Judge Rely. 49,,
the Circuit Court of Montgomery county
iShhowelter vs.. Hambrick From the Cir
cult Court OF Floyd county. reversed
0Dlnlon by Judge CaruWcN
Trout vs. Trout. From the Circuit court
Of Craig county. Affirmed. Opinion by
Judge Buchanan. r,.,,,,.
Hughes. Eninger. and others VS.. Epling
and others. From the Corporation court
of the city of Radford. Reversed. Opih-
ION by Judge Buchanan.
In a number of cases against the ivan
hoe L. and |. Company, from the Clrcull
% lNth HnneIl
was awarded. a. ,,-,.
Morganstern VS.. Commonwealth Writ
of error to the Hastings Court OF the
city OF Richmond, ,,,.
Kaufman VS.. Hotopp. From the CIR
cult Court of Albcmarle county. Wit
OF error and supersedeas. Bond 500.
Patterson vs.. Grottoes Company et ais
From the Circuit Court Of Augusta. APP
peal bond 500.
Tenry Poss VS. the Commonwealth
From the county Court OF Fairfax county.
Writ Of error refused.
stahlnecker and wife VS.. Snow ct ais
From the Circuit Court OF Nytne county
Appeal refused.
,rhe Court had intended to defer the
election Of tipstaff 10 the court M Rich
mond until they assembled at stanton,
i'm order that Judge Harrison might be
present but he having written that he did
not desire the matter kept open and was
entirely willing for the election TO be had
without further delay. the election was
had to-day and Mr.. John l.. Talley Of
Hanover chosen. There were a great
number OF applicants for the place.
CREME.