The Black Hills union. [volume] (Rapid City, Pennington County, Dakota [S.D.]) 1889-1904, 1899-09-29
Our Railroad Supreme Court.

Our Railroad Supreme Court.
If anyone has allowed them
selves to believe that the preseni
Supreme court is not under tn,
c .mplete dominion Of the rail.
/! roads, left him examine the case OF
Adams VS. Railroad Co., reported
in IL N. w. OF page SIT. This
was an action brought by a rail
road laborer to enforce a me-
chanic's lien under Section 5+7I
OF the Compiled Laws Of So nth
Dakota, which section is as follows,
viz:
Every railroad owner, company, or con-
tractor, and sub-contractor upon any railway,
shlii be deemed to have the notice provided
for the by the p eceding section for a period OF
sixty days from the last day Of the month in
wiz SuSl W. NpiiS, VI W.
nished, during which period any person who
has perform d such labor or furnished such
material, may file a lien with the clerk OF the
district court as provided III the preceding
se:tlon, which lien shall be binding upon the
ercctl n. excavation. cmbankment, brdg
road bed, or right ol way, and upon all and
upon which the same may be situated. to tue
fnl whine nj Si,,.h lab T. ar r,ntpiiul in th,I
county or judicial subdivision in which the
sans was hled In case the lien is sought to
be enforced against the owner. the liability
Shall not be greater than mis- liability would
have been to the owner ut the time the labor
was performed or material furnished; but the
LIABILITY Of the owner III the case actual notice
shall be given after the sixty days, shall be
the same as provided in this chapter"
When the Case came up for
hearing in the circuit court of
Lawrence county, the railroad
company, through its attorneys,
asked for a continuance on the
groun of absent witnesses. Tue
court denied their request and the
railroad company put in no evi.
dence, but appealed the case to
the supreme court Of the state.
The supreme court reversed the
circuit court on the ground that
the court erred in refusing to grant
a continuance as requested by the
railroad company. Upon this par
ticular point THE UNION has no
criticism to offer, as it may be
right or wrong, but after disposing
of that question as above stated
the supreme court remanded the
case back to circuit court for a new
trial. To show their warm sympa-
thy for the railroads they held as
follows, Judge Fuller writing tne
opinion and Corson asserting:
whether it would be neces sary to file the
lien IN every county through or into which
the road passes or extends need not at this
tine be determined Upo, the
theory that the railroads by promoting The
nj N,ihllr walfara ore advopt,racnS ~ the state
as q body polite and that it is better to suffer
mi schiei peculiar to an individual than an in
convenience which must, Of necessity, Serious
~ prejudice the public generally, the view is
sustained by the greater humble; Of vel rea-
soned authorities that no lien ca attach to a
single section Of a railroad, 4 x 1t would
be unreasonable to suppose that the legisla-
ture ever intended to enact a law by which a
sub contractor or any other person may de-
priyc The public Of every advantage which
railway facilities afford, by sale on execution
OF an inseverable section Of the roadbed X \
AS public policy torbids the acquisition Of a
lien upon a parl Of a railroad for work done
or materials furnished, a contractor who
grsdes assertion only Of the road cannot file a
lien upon that section alone. From the view
herein expr ssed it follows that PLAIN
TIFF's LIEN IS NOT ENFORCEABLE,
etc. etc.
The laws Of South Dakota de-
clare thar the lien shall be a lien
TO the full value Of such labor or
Y material II Mf county Q, judicial