Jamestown weekly alert. [volume] (Jamestown, Stutsman County, D.T. [N.D.]) 1882-1925, 1914-05-21
SUPREME COURT CON-
STRuES LE|N Law
Case Of Interest to Mechanics
Who do Repair Work.

A decision has just been received
from the state supreme court which
construes the lien law of North Da-
Dakota. The supreme court holds for
the artisan, blacksmith and machin-
ist claiming lien for repairs or la
Dor or material furnished, provided
said machinist retains possession of
the property on which he has be-
slowed labor or material; section
6295 of the revised codes of 1905
gives said artisan lien but does not
declare the same to be paramount
and superior to a prior existing mort
gage; nevertheless if he holds pos
session, the section is construed in
the light of common law, of which it
is a re-enactment, and as construed
by the court will give him para
mount and superior lien on property
as against prior existing mortgage.
In the case of Reeves & Co. v.
Boyle Brothers, in which the court
handed down decision May 8, it is
held that since the Boyle Brothers
kept at all times possession of the
engine in question "a large Reeves &
Co. threshing engine), their rights to
a prior lien were absolute, without
regard to the provisions of Chapter
1853, Laws of 1907, which was as
sailed by Reeves & Co. as unconsti-
tutional. The supreme court de-
clined to pass on the constitutional
ity of that statute directly, maintain
ing that it was not an issue in the
case. The value of the engine was
about $4,000 after repairs had been
made, and the lien filed was for
$500. The mortgage had been given
on the engine in 1906 by the origin
al purchaser, S. R. Russell. The in
strument was renewed and was a
valid mortgage at the time the work
was performed and the lien claimed.
The decision goes with the common
law right that labor and material put
on a machine enhanced the value of
the property as much for the benefit
of the mortgagor as the mortgage.
The decision of the court applies to
machinery of all kinds on which re-
pairs are made by mechanics.
The present law gives mechanics
liens for certain machinery repairs.
The objection made by Reeves & Co.
to the law of 1907 was, first, that it
limits the lien to be filed only by
blacksmiths and machinists; second,
that it arbitrarily sewers that class by
restricting the benefits conferred by
the act to blacksmiths and mechan-
les having established places of busi-
ness in the state; third, it arbitrarily
restricts benefits to be conferred on
parties comprising particular class
of citizens, by providing for para
mount lien to such citizen with an es-
tablished place of business, who
makes, alters, or repairs engines,
threshing machines or we'll ma
Chimes" This point was not passed
upon by the court as involved in the
action.
1t seems that general law apply
ing to all kinds of machinery should
be advocated by the machinists of
the state, which could not be sub
ject of question, or which could be
charged as class legislation and not
of general application.
Under the decision the important
part to be observed by machinists is
the holding of possession of the prop
erty. In the case of Boyle Brothers,
the engine has since been disposed of
and they secured title to the same
and will receive the amount of pay
ment for their repairs and work on
the engine.
;, On the appeal, the Boyle Brothers
were represented by Attorney McFar
land of this city, and Reeves & Co.
by Lawrence & Murphy, Fargo.
Judge Coffey held with the Boyle
Brothers and the supreme court af-
firmed the decision of the lower
court.