Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1897-05-06
INTERESTING OPINION HANDED
DOWN IN u. $. APPELLATE COURT.
The TINE LIMIT FOR FILING.
Judge BrnwIey Dissents-Lower
Court Declares the Virginia Law
on Liens UncOnstitutional-O
Opinions Handed Down.

lation relating thereto Is Unconstitutional
and void
The case was that OF the Liberty Per-
petual Building and Lean Company. ct
al, appellants, VS.. the NJ a. Furbush
G. Son Machine Company. ct AL, appel
lees. appealed from the Circuit Court OF
the United States for the Western Dis
trict of Virginia, at Lynchburg. The
opinion was written by Judge Golf
and concurred in by Judge Simonton, but
Judge Brawley dissents from IL.
HOW THE CASE AROSE.
The suit was brought by the NJ. a.
Furbush & Son Machine Company. a
corporation existing under the laws OF
New Jersey. against the Liberty Woollen-
Mills and the Liberty Woolien Manufac-
turin, COMPANY. Virginia corporation,
and certain trustees under mortgage
made by the Liberty Woo!len Company.
The bill alleges that the Liberty WOOL
len-Mills, I'm June, 1881. being indebted 70
M A. Furbush * Son In the sum OF Wa
As.77 i'm order 10 secure the same exc
cuted a mortgage upon its machinery ana
fixtures; that on April IL, 1883. an me pro-
perty OF the woo.len-miils, rear anu per
sonal. WAS sold for the sum OF slAo~ TO
William HI. McGhee, Il. ID. Berry, ,. NJ.
RolIinn { Grimm and J. S. Campbell.
who purchased with notice OF said mort
gage made TO secure the deDt 10 the NJ.
q Furbush q Son Machine Company;
that on April l2 1889, an agreement was
entered into between said purchasers anu
the Furbush a. Son Company tnat so,oD
of the coupon bonds of the Liberty Wooi-
en-Mills. which had been , d 10 ,he
PEOPLES National Bank, OF Lynchpurs,
should be redeemed by the purchasers
within thirty DAYS and turned over 10
the Furbush & Son Company, as cash
mortgage, which was done; that the pur-
chasers should execute 10 the LlpeIty
Woollen- Mills four bonds for an amount
in the aggregate of the residue Oh tns
debt due Furbush & Son Company, whlch
were 10 be assigned to that company as
collateral and additional security Tor me
debt SO due IT. which also was done. II
was further set forth that at the tlme tne
bill was filed the balance que th e uI
bush * Son Company on thelr saiu uep ,
was So 1855 with interest thereon, as wen
as the s. eco of coupon bonds peIore men
toned that the purchasers OF the pro-
perty OF the Liberty WOMEN NILS ,,r aos OF
a joint-stock company Tor the purpose W
operating the plant so purchased py
them. and that 1t was duly chartgfed I'm, IN,
der the law as the l.lperty " ooliei
Manufacturing Company, the oid e ,ors
pany. with the assent of the purchasers,
conveying the property directly 10 tne
new organizatiori: that the Liberty WOOL
len-NIilis defaulted in the payment OF the
coupons due December. 1884, on tne po JnS-
secured by the mortgage OF June l, 1889,
and was still in default when this SUIT
was brought.
REFERRED TO A MASTER.
4 decree was passed referring the cause
to a master, with instructions 10 report
an account Of all liens upon the properly
in the bill giving their respective amounts
.Azfs ri N
The master proceeded to execute the
order OF reference. and returned MS re-
port. TO which certain exceptions were
filed. among others that OF the Llper.y
Perpetual Building and Loan Company,
because the master had failed TO state its
debt as a lien on the property sought 10
BE- sold. having preference over the nens
of the mortgages Said company, as as
signee of the laborers TO whom they %ele
originally given by the Liberty Woolien
Manufacturing Company, owned iapor
tickets amounting to the sum or -, lsJol,
which. Il claimed, held the position OF
paramount lien on the property described
i'm the bill by virtue OF the laws OF tne
state of Virginia. IT appears from tne
masters report, and the evidence Dled
herewith that these claims were IN the
form OF notes given by the Liberty WOO
len Manufacturing Company, dated al va
rlous times in the year 1891. payable sixty
DAYS after date to the order OF the Ia
borers employed by said company, and
assigned by them by endorsement thereon
to the Liberty Perpetual Building ana
Loan Company. Priority Tor She s.se oe ayd
was claimed under sections 2iso, Ziso, ana
24s7 of the Code Of Virginia.
LOWER COURTS DECISION.
The court below overruled the exceptions
of the Liberty Perpetual Building ana
Loan Company TO the master report, anu
decreed that the claims held by IL were
not liens having priority over the mort
cages mentioned in that bill but subordi-
nate thereto. 1t was 10 this action Oh inc
court that appellants took exception.
The court below founded its decree on
its findings that the Virginia legislation
referred TO was so far as IL related TO
liens for wages due the employees OF man
ufacturing companies. unconstitutional
and void citing a number OF authorities
in support. and, in any event; the iaporers
OF the Liberty Woollen Manufacturing
Company could have no lien except upon
the property of that company. which: th'
court held. was simply In equity or re.
demption-in other words. the properly
of the Liberty Woollen Miiis, snpJee ,,,o 40
mortgages executed by that company upon
the same. r,r,rn,,D
The Judges of the Court of Appeals hold
that under the provisions OF the law APP
plicaole to this case. II Is Only me IA
borers of "any railway, canal, or otner
transportation company. or or any MINING
or manufacturing company who are en-
titled TO have a prior lien on the iran
chlse, gross, earnings ana on an rns n ,e@'
(which is used In operating the same, 10
the extent of the moneys due them py
said company for such wages ana, aiso'
must IL be kept in mind that sucn iapor-
ers are not entitled 10 such lien unless
thew have. within ninety DAYS after their
claims have fallen due, filed IN the CLERK
office of the court OF the county or cor
poratlon in which Is located me cnIei
office in the state OF NirSihia 90 .h1 eU,n-
randum of the amount and consideration
of their claims, verified by aildavit' whlsn
memorandum is 10 be recorded IN tne
deed-book and indexed N the name OF me
claimant and also in the name or sucn
The intention was that the mere in
spectlon of a record. TO pc found al a
particular place should disclose all the
information necessary in order TO enable
those interested therein to ~.termine as
70 the existence of liens or >le property
of certain companies; III the claims OF
such laborers are ASSIGNEE sne assignee,
The provisions OF the statute In the same
manner and to the same extent as was
required OF the assignor
No one is required TO go outside OF the
c,erk,s office for the information he is
told nv the law he can find therein. nor
exnected to control his conduct by the
conflicting statements MADE by the parties
10 the record, the one asserting and the
other denying. as their respective in
terests may suggest
The decree was afhriheu.
OTHER CASES DECIDED.
Other opinions handed down yesterday
No a02NFred L. Clayton. agent bark
Edn,und Phinney. appellant, vs.. John s..
Webb. appellee Appeal nin, from District strict
No. aos.~PhoenIx Insurance Company,
Of Brooklyn, appellant, vs.: J: T. Schultz,
anne,iee Appeal from Circuit Court OF
,ulDfN..IH..... Isis4rict Of VIRGINIA. at LYNCH :