The Coeur d'Alene press. (Coeur d'Alene, Idaho) 1892-1907, 1904-01-02
LABOR RIGaTs CONSTRUED.
Decision Handed Dssn b. supr.m.
Goau.

"eeisi"h Handed Dsan b. Aupreos
Gear.
The clerk Of the supreme court has
given out for publication a decision
affirming the lower court in the case
OF william Thompson vs.. the- Wise
boy Mining Il Milling company.
appeal from Idaho county.
Thompson was employed as an
aiiialgamator ia quartz mill located
"n the Crystal Butte claim and where
ore was being reduced and treated as
!, Sas tainsd from the Wise boy and
North Star claims and obtained jndg
ment for s253,7 20 for his services,
together with a reasonable attorney :
lee aud costs Of suit. From jndg
ment the defendants sppealed.
The syllabus Of the court says.
Where tbs ore extracted from the
mine is milled upon the mine aud in
mill belanging 10 the mine, the
labor thereon comes within the in
tent aud neaning Of the lien lave aud
lien therefor il properly allowed.
Tina, portion Of section = Of the
lien laNs Of 1893 which provides
that The court shall also ALLOW az ID
iart Of the costs the moneys paid for
iiltng and recording the claim aud
reasonable attorneys fees. l. not
class legislation aud il not la viola
ton II section Is Of article ! Of the
Constitution
Where such provision for allow,
anee ot attorneys teas does not single
cat particular debtors. IL IL not open
10 The oblee,ion that it does not
AFFORD equal ius,ies 10 all "
The most serious question raised
by the defence NAs that the services
rendered by Thompson we're not the
s'ibles-t 1T ii-n aud the lieu Laws u
ID" state did not contemplate the
granting u lien 10 one doing. such
uork ia a quartz mill. whether IL be
situated upon = mine OF elsrn here.
The appellants argued that the
iaboT for which this lien was sought
wac simply labor upon personal prop.
cgty, namely. the ore after beine
extracted from the mine, and that
snch lahor uouId no, h. said 10 he
work ia OF upon the mipe. They
further said The real ss,st is
HhosheT tbs labor IL such AZ may have
added 10 tho value Of the property "
Ia support ui this contention the |
appellants quoted several decisions
supposedly for the purpose Of show
ips that liens are allowed hccAnsr the |
claimant has done some work In or
about tho property Shich tended to
Improve The same or enhance its
vAlnc. and tho laiur thereby became
= part II the property on which the
lien ~As claimed.
Tho court IN It's opinion. says
The legislature. In cnaciine thcse
lass, evidently did not have In mind
she protection Of the mine uwncrs,
hui rather the protection Of the
Iaborers They wcrc not con,em,
plating, ~bcu they enacted this law,
tbs probability Of the laborcrs en
baneiug or dcprcctAiine the value oi
10" prospects. mining claims, or
min~s. as 'hc cas- might lc. but
rather that the men Who WeTo employ
81 aud s"ni out "a do work upon
snch properties should he entitled to
lion on them for their services. To
say ,ha, tho laborer is worthy ~ his
hire is 10 toll him shat he wants TO
kuov and Wbat the Legislature
evidently intended. 10 that this
maxim sill he carried step further
aud that hp shall he assured that he
10 NO, only wurthy " hts hire, hut
that he Sill got his ray. and that tina,
property upon or about which he
y.tAcd hall 10 liablp for surh nay -