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

dStloH. NotdtS. lool, D. o/.J
Referring to the lien law of Cali
f%ornia, the Supreme Court o. tina
t Estate in Mars vs.. Mckay, IA Cal. 128
decided in 1880, said:
The idea OF a multiplicity Of suit.
in cases like the present is expressly
excluded. The statute requires tina
every len on the same property shall
be litigated and enforced in the same
action, and every suit brought to EN-.
force a particular lien must be re
garded as a proceeding : enforce al
the liens against the same property
The lien law adopted in 1875. now
in force in this state, contemplates
the foreclosure of all liens in one as
ton. 1t is provided in section II.
(Rev. Laws, Sec. 2224:
ANY number OF persons claiming
liens may join in the same action; and
when separate actions are cOmn1enc-
ed the court may consolidate them
By section IS (Rev. Laws. Sec.
2227) it is also provided:
Said liens may be enforced by an
action in any court of competent Jur-
isdiction," etc. ,
The provisions of this section
clearly contemplate the foreclosure OF
all liens in one action and one Judg-
ment.
Bv an amendment (Stats. 1907, p
1922 the provisions Of this section
LAS to action on. trial Of, and sale
OF premises under mechanics liens.
Shall be applicable to such actions in
a justice court. where the sum involv-
ed does not exceed three hundred
dollars"
What did the legislature mean by
the words sum involved' as used III
this amendment We think the words
here used are susceptible to no other
meaning than the sum involved in the
S~evera! liens embraced in the suit.
This. we think, may be taken as a
construction by the legislature OF
the provisions of the constitution and
S entitled to consideration as a con-
struction bv a coordinate branch al
government.
In the recent case Of DAILY vs.. La
hontan Mines Co.. 80 New. 15S Pac.
2S5. We said:
Trial courts, in actions to lore
close II Or more liens, where 1t ap-
pears that there are other lien
2laimants. and ,especiallr where it ap-
pears that other suits are pending Tor
the foreclosure Of all or a portion OF
such other liens, should endeavor
within all reasonable limitations to
protect the rights OF all lien claim
ants in one Judgment.
In Elliott VS.. Ivers, E New. 200. this
Court said:
The statute undoubtedly contem-
plates a fomal suit. a publication Of
notice. an appearance upon the part
of lien claimants other than those
commencing the suit. and a DISPOSE
ton of the entire matter of lien:
against the property affected, III one
proceeding"
See, also. Lonkey VS.. Wells. 10 Nev.
2z1; III: Skyr1ne VS.. Occidental M
Co., s New. 23l.
We think the provision OF the con
stitution in question ought to be SO
construed as not to confer jurisdlc-
ton upon Justices Courts 10 fore
close mechanics liens where the total
amount o. all the liens involved III
the suit exceeds three hundred dol
lars. We think the wording CT the
section is more IN harmony with this
construction than the one to sustain q
more extensive jurisdiction. The con
struction is in hamony with what
seems to have been the intent of the
trainers of the constitution and bet
ter accords with the provisions OF the
statute as it existed both before and
Since the adoption of the constltu-
ton.
If any other construction were CIV
en- to this provision of the constitu-
ton, we. would have this anomalous
situation. Several liens might be filed
upon a certain property, some OF
which were for amounts less than
three hundred dollars, and some of
which were for amounts exceeding
three hundred dollars. If suit were
I instituted in the Justices Court upon
one or all of the liens less than three
hundred dollars, those IN excess OF
three hundred could not be exhibited
and foreclosed in that action. An,
other suit would have to be Instituted
in the District Court upon these lat,
ter liens. The statute could not be
complied with in either case unless
the suit in the Justices Court was
abandoned or dismissed and the liens
involved in that suit exhibited n the
District Court.
= AS all lien claims must be recorded
: within a prescribed time, it is an easy
: matter for a litigant to determine
: whether the total amount of the lien
S will be in excess OF the jurisdiction o
the Justices Court.
It is contended by counsel for ap
: pellant that the jud rment rendered
by the District Court is void becaus'
the District Court had no greater Jur
isdiction on appeal than did the Jus
|. t;ces court in the trial originally Thi
n Court in a number of cases has he'll
that the District Court acquired n
d jurisdiction to try a cause on appea
from a Justices Court where the Jus
ic tees Court was without jurisdictio
is to entertain the case and rende
Judgment therein. Fitchett vs.. Her
re ley. 81 New. 341 and authorities there
" in cited. 1t must be co1lceded thu
l. this is the general rue which is SUI
5 ported by many authorities. "a Cy
-" - E 81 %"