Case Name: FLANIGAN AND CARPENTER v. FEURING
Court: New Jersey Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: New Jersey
Decision Date: 1850-04
Citations: 22 N.J.L. 387
Docket Number: 
Parties: FLANIGAN AND CARPENTER v. FEURING.
Judges: 
Reporter: New Jersey Law Reports
Volume: 22
Pages: 387–395

Head Matter:
FLANIGAN AND CARPENTER v. FEURING.
A supplement to the Camden lien law extended the law over the whole city, and repealed the section which exonerated from the operation of the lien buildings built by contract, on filing the written contract in the county clerk’s office: a second supplement repealed the repealing section of the first supplement; by this the exonerating section is revived, and extended, with the act, over the whole city.
This case was certified from the Circuit Court of the county of Camden, and arises upon a saive faeias upon a lien filed in the office of the clerk of General Quarter Sessions of the city of Camden, under the Camden lien law, by the plaintiffs, against two three story frame dwelling houses, situate on the north side of Cooper street, between Fifth and Sixth streets, in the city of Camden, for lumber found and provided by said plaintiffs to Middleton and Brick, the builders and contractors in and about the erection of the said houses owned by the said William Eeuring.
The declaration is filed against the said William Fearing, the owner, and the said Middleton and Brick, the contractors, and is in the usual form.
The defendant, Feuring, severed, and -pleaded, that the said buildings were erected by contract, &c., and that the said contract was filed, &c., in the clerk’s office of Gloucester county, and also in the clerk’s office of Camden county.
It is admitted that the lien is properly filed, and that the amount due thereon is $241.62, with legal interest on the same from the 6th day of August, 1845, and that the said houses are not in that part of the said city of Camden which was embraced in the Camden lien law at the time of its passage, and that the said contract has never been filed in the office of the clerk of General Quarter Sessions of the city of-Camden. If the Supreme Court shall be of. opinion that filing- the contract did not discharge the buildings' from liens (the said buildings not being situate in that part of said city embraced in the lien law at the time of its passage), or that the said contract was not filed in the proper office, then, in either ease, judgment shall be rendered for the plaintiffs for the amount of their claim or lien, with costs, otherwise for the defendant, with his costs ; and that either party have leave to turn this ease into a special verdict, and bring a writ of error thereon- within one term after judgment.
Argued, January Term, 1850, before the CHIEF JUSTICE, and Carpenter and Randolph, Justices.
Dudley and Halsted, for plaintiffs in error*
Browning, for defendant in error.
Dudley and W. Hoisted for plaintiffs.
There are but two points which arise .under the case, as certified. The first is, whether the fourth seetion of the act of 1820 (Pam. Laws 128) was revived by the repeal of the repealing clause. The fourth seetion of the act of 1820, generally designated as Sharp’s lien law, was repealed by the second seetion of the aet of 1830 (Pam. Laws 163), and when revived by the aet of 1844 (Pam. Laws 177), it was revived precisely as it stood previous to its repeal. 21 Pioh. 409 ; 2 Meto. 418 ; 12 Co. M. 7; 7 Cow. 576 ; 7 Cranoh. 382. Previous to its repeal, it applied only to that part of Camden embraced in the provisions of the original act. The peculiar phraseology of the first section of the act of 1830, extending the operation of the act of 1830, shows that this construction must be given to those acts. A strict construction must be given to the acts, and the court should confine itself strictly to its language. If inconvenient, the result is not absurd. The intent is to govern, and the argument, ab inconvenienti, can only have weight when the construction is doubtful. Counsel cited Smith on Statutory and Constitutional Construction 628, 651, 909, &c.; 2 Kent 462; Broom’s Max. 248; 1 Chit. R. 63, note; Dwarris on Statutes 708; 1 Har. R. 293; 21 Pick. 409; 2 Meta. 118; 12 Co. 7; 7 Cow. 536.
But, secondly, the contract was not filed in the proper office, and therefore the defence fails. The filing of the contract followed the filing of the lien, and the place of filing the former was therefore changed by implication. If, however, the judge below was right in his opinion on this point, under a strict construction of the acts, we insist that he is evidently mistaken on the first point.
Browning, contra.

Opinion:
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Randolph, J.
The plaintiffs were material men, who furnished lumber for Middleton and Brick to build, for Feuring, a house in that part of the city of Camden not embraced in the original lien law of 1820. The lien was filed with the clerk of the General Quarter Sessions of Camden, and the contract under which the building was erected was filed with the clerk of the Common Pleas of Gloucester county. The question for the court to determine is, whether this filing of the contract exempts the building, or its owner, Feuring, from the plaintiff's lien? The original lien law of February 25, 1820, (Pam. Lavjs 124) only applied to a particular portion of Camden, therein described, and the fourth section of that act directs, that whenever a building is erected " within the tract of land above described by contract, the payment, according to the terms of the contract, should fully discharge the building from all liens for work and materials, provided the said contract be in writing, and filed, as aforesaid, forthwith after the same shall have been made and executed." The term "as aforesaid" here refers to the filing with the clerk of the Common Pleas of Gloucester county. The act of February 19, 1830, (Pam. Laws 103) extends the lien law of 1820 to the whole city of Camden, but repeals its fourth section and such other parts as conflict with the act of 1830. The act of March 7, 1844, (Pam. Laws 177) directs that all liens "be thereafter filed and recorded with the clerk of the Quarter Sessions of the city of Camden, and repeals so much of the prior act as requires the liens to be filed with the clerk of the Gloucester Pleas, and also the second section of the act of 1831, which is the one that repeals the fourth section of the act of 1820, and which fourth section is, of course, thereby revived. The act of 1846 authorizes the scire facias to be issued out of the Camden, instead of the Gloucester Pleas. This is the state in which the statutes were when the case now under consideration arose; and in construing the acts, we must take them all in pari materia. These acts, then, direct that the lien be filed with the clerk of the Quarter Sessions of Camden, which is done accordingly in this case, and the sc ire. facias is als'o issued in accordance with the law. The entire act of 1820, including its fourth section, by the act of 2841, stands in full force, and, by the supplement of 1830, is extended to the whole city of Camden, including the place where the defendant's house is situated. Not only the lien is thus extended, but the fourth section is also extended, which discharges from the lien by filing the contract with the clerk of Gloucester county, which was done in the present case. The. filing, then, the lien with the clerk of the Camden Sessions creates or fixes the lien on the premises, and the filing of the written contract with the clerk of Gloucester county, and fulfilling the same, discharged the house from the operation of the lien, so that neither it or its owner, Feuring, is at all liable to the plaintiffs for the materials furnished the builders. Judgment must therefore be affirmed, with costs.