Amador ledger., 1903-07-03
THE LAW OF LIENS.

1t seems as though the last legis-
lature had made bad muddle of the
lien law, so far as it relates to mines.
Many attorneys are OF the opinion that
as section 1183, G. G. P. now reads,
any mine leased or bonded or held on
option is liable to liens for work done
upon it, even though notice of nom
responsibilit be posted, and legally
given. If such is the case it will be un-
safe Tor mine owners to give any bonds,
on their property, as they will stand a
chance to lose it by failure of bonders
to pay the men employed.
We notice that in Mariposa county.
such prominent attorneys as Congdon
& Congdon have called the attention
OF mine owners to the law, and declare
that under it the mines can be held re-
sponsible for labor done upon them,
and that the old form of notice will not
protect the owners. Pros
pect.
A statement of the above import
has appeared in several of our ex-
changes from Calaveras and other
mining counties. The subject is one
of overshadowing importance to all
mineral sections. When we first
noticed this Interpretation of the
lien law as amended by the last legis-
lature, we were amazed at the
thought that the law-making body
should thus clutch the mining indus
try by the throat, and practically
choke its life out. The Ledger was
in a quandary how to act. If true,
it amounted to an effectual estoppel
to the bonding of mining claims for
working purposes. No mine owner
would be so foolish as to give work
ing bond on his mine, when by so
doing he placed himself in jeopardy
of losing his property by the filing
OF liens for unpaid labor or material /;
the law giving him no avenue of es-
cape. Heretofore, the mine owner
has been able to protect himself by
posting a notice on the property to
the effect that the mine would not be
liable for debts contracted by or
materials furnished to the bonders.
We were not prepared to accept the
intimation that this saving pro-
vision had been annuled, without a
personal investigation of the matter.
During the past week we have
taken the trouble to look into this
vital question, with the view of
ascertaining as far as possible, in
what shape the lien law, as regards
mining claims, has been left by the
last legislature. And we are pleased
to be able to say, after full exami-
nation; that we can find nothing in
the statutes of 1903 that warrants
the opinion given in the above ex-
tract from our cotemporary. We
find that section 1892 of the Code of
Civil Procedure has been left un-
touched. This section provides that
the owner of mining claim NAV
prevent a lien attaching to his prop
erty, on account of labor done there
on or material furnished thereto. at
the instance of any person other
than himself, by giving notice within
three days after receiving notice OF
the work done, or material furnish
ed. that he will not be responsible
for the same, by posting notice in
writing to that effect in some con-
spicuous place upon the claim. This
is the section that has always been
depended upon by the mine owner
to prevent liens attaching to his
claim. If it has been effectual in
that respect in the past, we see NO
reason why it should be less effectual
now, inasmuch as it remains unim-
paired.
Section 1888, which embraces the
lien law proper, has been amended.
The section is too long to quote in
its entirety. We may state one
change simply consists in the addi-
ton after ''mine or mining claim, -
of the words 'or in or upon any real
property worked as a mine" These
additional words are inserted in two
or three places in the section as
amended. So that under The law as
it now stands a laborer or material
man will have lien not only upon a
mining claim, located or patented as
such; but also upon any land worked
as a mining claim, whether held
under an agricultural or mineral
patent. The significance of this
change will be understood when we
state that the supreme court of Cali
fornia, in the case of Morse VS. De-