Carson City daily appeal. [volume] (Carson City, Nev.) 1907-1930, 1916-12-29

~
1t is the contention OF counsel 70
appellant that the language of tn,
constitution cited supra, does no
contemplate the comforting Of juris
diction upon justices courts of an &C
ton to foreclose two or more me
chanics' liens where the aggregat.
amount of the liens exceed thre,
hundred dollars, notwithstanding
each OF the several liens sought to b.
foreclosed in one action is for ar
amount less than three hunderd dol
lars.
We agree with this contention O.
counsel. Our attention has not beer
called to a similar provision appear.
ing In the constitution of II other
state which has been construed. A,
the time this provision was unuer
consideration by the constitutional
convention. it was commended by Mr.
Brosnan afterwards a Justice of this
Court) that lone of the State consti.
tutions distinctly defined The juris-
diction OF Justices of the peace, but
that such jurisdiction was a matter
which the legislature was empowered
to fix. citing american Constitu-
TONS (Nevada Constitutional De-
bates, p. 6o1.)
Examining the history Of this pro-
vision OF our constitution, we find
that the original proposed draft OF
the section recommended by the COM
mittee did net ckJsfain such provis-
on. In this connection. we find the
tol owing resolution offered by Mr..
Banks:
"RESOLVED. That Article VI
De referred to the Judiciary Commit
tee, with instructions to so amend
the same as to give to Justices of the
Peace jurisdiction in all cases of for
chile entry and unlawful d%etainer, and
mechanics liens, where the amount
involved does not exceed three hun
dred dollars" (Nev. Const. Debates,
p. 6S8)
Discussing this proposed amend
ment, MIR. belong is reported (p.
6SS) as saying:
Suppose we confer jurisdiction. as
he proposes, to the extent Of three
hundred dollars. in cases OF mcchan-
les liens. There may be one mechan-
&c who claims a lien Of only three
hundred dollars, and he brings his
suit before a Justice Of the Peace.
But the law requires that all other
parties holding liens on that proper
ty, when he commences to ~foreclose,
shall come forward and present their
claims, and it is a principle of equity
that the first claimant shall be estop-
ped from proceeding until all
the other claims are united with his
Consequently, there are several men
N u 4 ~ nv. lions e, tIa 49,.
thousand dollars? perhaps, on the
anne building. They cannot present
that case in 4 Justices Court, be-
cause the court cannot render a Judg-
ment for such an amount-and what
are you going to do. 1t is evident
that you cannot settle it by one suit,
and consequently you must permit a
multiplicity Of suits. Suppose we en-
graft i'll the article the provision
which the gentleman suggests. what is
to be done in a case where there is
one lien OF ten thousand dollars, and
another OF three hundred dollars?
Both liens must be paid, and the
proper way is to have them all come
II together, that the chancellor may
make his decree in such manner that
full and lair equity may be done to
Ill; but under this provision. the three
hundred dollar man would be obliged
to go off and commence suit on his
own hook. 1t would certainly increase
the difficulties in the way of obtain.
ing justice for the poor man"
To these remarks Mr.. Banks is re
ported (p. 6S9) as replying as follows:
Il wish to reply to that portion OF
the speech of the gentleman from
Storey, (Mr. DeLong) in which he
refers to mechanics liens, and what
would be the course of proceeding
IN su>h case as the one to which he
has referred. Now suppose, for in
stance. that this amendment be adopt,
ed. and one man brings his suit I'M
der the mechanics lien law, claiming
that he is entitled to receive some
amount less than three hundred dol.
lars; then others come in with thei'
:lains, amounting in the aggregate
TO a sum which exceeds three hun
dred dollars. At the very worst, al
that is then required is to ~transfe,
the case to a court OF competent Jur
isdiction. Such has been the practice
in California, and no doubt it will b.
in this state, it we shall adopt thi
lproposition.'
The form of the provision as final
ly adopted was drafted by Judg
Brosnan debates pr. 700-702.) Rel
alive to the final draft, the followin.
colloquy is reported (p. 702) as ca
curing between Delegates Bank
and Brosnan:
"MR. BANKS-Then l under
stand from the gentleman from Stol
ey that in case of the foreclosing c
mechanics liens. suit may b
brought. within the amount of thre
' hundred dollars, in a Justices Cour
That is. it may be brought either i
: a Justices Court, or the Distri'
l Court provided the amount involve
IS less than three hundred dollars?'
MR.. BROSNAN-The rnechan
: having a lien to that amount, has h
=; choice of courts"
c Relative to the consideration to |
given expressions made IN debate /
delegates to the constitutional co,
ventions, this Court in Lewis v