Case Name: BONNER, Appelant, v. MINNIER et al., Respondents
Court: Montana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Montana
Decision Date: 1893-09-05
Citations: 13 Mont. 269
Docket Number: 
Parties: BONNER, Appelant, v. MINNIER et al., Respondents.
Judges: Pemberton, C. J., concurs.
Reporter: Montana Reports
Volume: 13
Pages: 269–288

Head Matter:
BONNER, Appelant, v. MINNIER et al., Respondents.
[Submitted June 21, 1893.
Decided September 5, 1893.]
Homestead — Mechanic’s Lien. — A homestead is not exempt from foreclosure and sale to satisfy a lien for materials used by the owner in the improvement thereof, such lien being a “ Mechanic’s Lien” within the meaning of section 323 of the Code of Civil Procedure providing that the exemption of homesteads from forced sale shall not affect any laborer’s or mechanic’s lien.
(De Witt, J., dissenting.)
Appeal from Third Judicial District, Deer Lodge County.
Action to foreclose mechanic’s lien. The cause was tried before Durfee, J. Defendants had judgment below.
Reversed.
Statement of the case by Mr. Justice Harwood. — This action was brought to obtain judgment, and foreclose a lien to enforce payment, for materials furnished and used in the construction of a certain house in the village of Champion, Deer Lodge county. It appears that said house was built upon a piece of land theretofore vacant, being part of a quartz lode mining claim, purchased by defendant Minnier from one Baudet, which purchase was originally evidenced by a bill of sale executed by Baudet to Minnier. But it appears to be conceded that the money used in said purchase belonged to defendant Mrs. Minnier; that, while the title to the property stood in that condition, the defendant Minnier, with the knowledge and approval of his wife, commenced the erection of a house on said land, and purchased from plaintiff, and used in said structure, certain lumber and other materials; that, to secure payment for said building material, plaintiff filed his account thereof, and notice of lien on said property, as provided by law; that, some time after the commencement of the construction of said house, a formal conveyance of said premises was made by said original owner, Baudet, and defendant Minnier, to his wife, Mrs. Minnier. Said house appears to have been constructed and arranged so as to be used for residence puijioses, or as a place of business, or for both such purposes; that, as soon as the house was sufficiently constructed to admit of habitation, defendant and his wife moved therein, and occupied the same continuously as their home, and Mrs. Minnier also fitted up and operated a barber’s shop in one room of said house; that defendants own no other real property as a homestead or otherwise; that defendants failed to pay for said building materials, wherefore this action was brought to foreclose said lien, and subject said premises to sale to enforce such payment. There was no controversy raised in the action as to the furnishing of said building materials by plaintiff, or the use thereof by defendants in the erection of said building, and the nonpayment therefor, as alleged.
The only defense set up was that defendants claimed said premises as their homestead, and that the same, being a homestead, was not subject to a lien for said building materials so purchased and used in the improvement thereof. There was some controversy in the case as to whether said premises'constituted the home of defendants at the time said materials were furnished and used in the improvement thereof; but the trial court sustained the contention of defendant's that said premises constituted their homestead, and the court further held that the statutes of this state exempt homesteads from the charge of a lien for building materials procured and used in the erection of improvements thereon, and judgment was rendered accord ingly, from which judgment, and an order overruling plaintiff’s motion for a new trial, this appeal was prosecuted.
Brantley & Scharnikow, for Appellant.
I. The claim, of homestead exemption made by defendants is not good as against the claims of the lienors. The homestead law provides that land situated in a village or town, as is the case of the land in controversy herein, shall be owned and occupied as a homestead, in order that it may “not be subject to forced sale on execution or other process from a court.” (Comp. Stats., 147, § 322.) It is therefore essential, in order that a claim of homestead exemption may be good, that the property be actually occupied as such at the time the claim sought to be enforced against it accrues. The person asked to give credit will thus be notified of the claim of homestead, and can act accordingly. (Thompson on Homesteads and Exemptions, §§ 244, 247, and 317; 9 Am. & Eng. Ency. of Law, pp. 426, 436, and 447, and note; Elston v. Robinson, 23 Iowa, 208; Charless v. Lamberson, 1 Iowa, 435; 63 Am. Dec. 457; Christy v. Dyer, 14 Iowa, 438; 81 Am. Dec. 494; Walters v. People, 18 111. 194; 65 Am. Dec. 730; Tumlinson v. Swinney, 22 Ark. 400; 76 Am. Dec. 432; Pryor v. Stone, 70 Am. Dec. 347, note.)
II. We insist further, that the use of the words “laborer’s or mechanic’s lien” as used in the exception created by section 323, page 147 of the Compiled Statutes of Montana, is generic, and that these are to be taken in a broad and popmlar sense, embracing every character of lien provided for in the lien law, to wit: Comp. Stats., § 1370, p. 1029. The language of this latter section is general and comprehensive and gives a lien to any person who contributes directly in any way by his labor or material furnished to the improvement of any real estate of whatever kind or character, making no exception whatever.
This statute is called the Mechanic’s Lien Law, both in the Compiled Statutes and in the decisions of this court, and the object is to create and preserve ample security to the laborer or material-man. The lien law and the section referred to above (§ 323, p. 147), as they now are in the Compiled Statutes, are parts of the same general act, and they must be construed so as to make them consistent and not contradictory. This can. be done only by regarding the words “laborer’s and mechanic’s lien” as generic and embracing all classes of liens referred to in the lien law. Where a word having a technical, as well as a popular’, meaning is used in a statute the courts will accord to it its popular meaning unless the very nature of the subject indicates, or the context suggests, that it is used in its technical sense. (Sutherland on Statutory Construction, p. 329, § 250.)
This constructive meaning of the terms was early recog- ‘ nized by this court in the case of Mochon v. Sullivan, 1 Mont; 472.
This court also held in the case of Merrigan v. English, 9 Mont. 125, that a mechanic who also furnishes material has a lien as against a homestead for both labor and material.
In Phelps etc. Windmill Co. v. Shay, 32 Neb. 19, the court calls the lien for materials a mechanic’s lien. The statutes of Nebraska providing for such liens and creating the exception thereunder are similar to ours, and the section granting homestead exceptions uses the same words, to-wit: mechanic’s or laborer’s, as are used in our statute.. Yet the court, in construing these two statutes, holds that a material-man has a lien for materials used for the erection of improvements on a homestead. And this is a case in which the lien was for material only.-
III. If the debt has accrued prior to the, occupation of the property as a homestead, or if the claim is for the money that' purchased it, or for the material out of which it was erected, the claim of. the creditor is superior oto the claim of homestead. (Thompson on Homesteads, §§ 372, 373.) The lien for labor or material, when duly fixed by filing the claim and notice, relates back to the commencement of the labor or the use of the material, (Mochon v. Sullivan, 1 Mont. 472; Merrigan v. English', 9 Mont. 126.) The lien then having attached itself to the property prior, to any occupation by the owner, the necessary, act on his part to establish his right to claim the exemption, it follows that it is superior to the homestead right.(Tuttle v. Howe, 14 Minn. 145; 100 Am. Dec. 205; Charlessv. Lamberson, 1 Iowa, 436; 63 Am. Dec. 457.) The statutes of both Minnesota and Iowa are the same as ours, and ours was taken from them.
IV. The decision in Walsh v. McMenomy, 74 Cal. 356, upon which the defendants rely as conclusive, is directly contrary to that of Phelps etc. Windmill Co. v. Shay, 32 Neb. 19. But this court in Bindley v. Davis, 7 Mont. 212, held that our statute was not taken from the California law, and refused to be bound by the California decisions. The Minnesota, Iowa, and Nebraska statutes being the same as ours, we believe the decisions of those states should be followed as construing the statute according to its true meaning and spirit, and according to principles of sound reason and justice.
W. H. Trippet, for Respondent.
A statute similar to our section 323, page 147, Compiled Laws, has been construed by the supreme court of California, in the cases of Bicharás v. Shear, 70 Cal. 187, and Walsh v. McMenomy, 74 Cal. 356, wherein it is held that a material-man is not comprehended by the terms “mechanic” or “laborer.” It would certainly require a stretch of the imagination to construe them to mean the same thing or anything like the same thing. Duncan v. Bateman, 23 Ark. 327, 79 Am. Dec. 109, is a case in point, and it is there held that “a lumberman is not an artisan, a builder, or a mechanic.” The plaintiff here is either a lumberman or a material-man, and it could with as much truth be said that either of those words meant a “laborer” as to say that either of them meant a “mechanic.” To say that the exemption of a homestead does not affect the lien of a material-man does violence to the language of our statute. The only case cited by appellant which in any way controverts the California cases is that from Nebraska, reported in 32 Nebraska, 19. The report shows that a petition for a rehearing was filed in that case, but, whatever became of it, the point decided in the California eases was not raised. Plaintiff contends, which is not conceded, that the material was furnished before tbe building became a homestead, and then cites authorities from the state of Minnesota, from which our homestead law was taken, claiming that they hold that if the lien attached to the property prior to its occupancy as a homestead, then the lien would be superior to the homestead right. These authorities are squarely against the position taken by the appellant. Thompson on Homesteads and Exemptions, in section 373, shows what these decisions were. The first case was that of Cogel v. Mickow, 11 Minn. 478, which laid down a rule directly the opposite to the contention of the appellant here. Then the legislatiu’e amended the law changing the rule in that case. Then followed the case of Tuttle v. Howe, 14 Minn. 145, 100 Am. Dec. 205, which held “that, as the statutes now stand, the lien claimant, having a lien anterior and superior to a homestead, may enforce the same without any reference whatever to such homestead right,” etc. See the last part of the opinion. The amended statutes under that decision were entirely different from ours. (See Thompson on Homesteads and Exemptions, § 373.) It will be seen also that the case cited by appellant (Charless v. Lamberson, 1 Iowa, 436, 63 Am. Dec. 457) does not apply to this case. The decision was on statutes altogether different from ours. The statute in that case provided that the homestead could be sold on debts contracted prior to the passage of the homestead law, and that provision of the statutes, together with prior statutes, governed the decision in the case.

Opinion:
Harwood, J.
We think under the facts shown in this case the premises in question were properly held to constitute defendants' homestead.
The important question of law involved in this appeal is whether a homestead is exempt from foreclosure and sale to satisfy a lien created by law in favor of one who furnishes materials purchased and used by the owners of such homestead in the improvement thereof. It is not disputed that by the provisions of chapter 82, page 1028, of the Compiled Statutes of this state, a lien is expressly created in favor of parties furnishing materials contracted for and used by the owners of land in making improvements thereon, without any exception in favor of homestead premises. But it is contended by respondents that, notwithstanding the provisions of that statute, the statute providing exemption of homesteads and other property from forced sale on execution (Code Civ. Proc., § 321— 30) withholds the homestead from the operation of such lien if it accrued for material alone, furnished and used in the improvement of the homestead.
To maintain this proposition, respondents rely on a strict and very narrow interpretation and application of the clause of section 323 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which provides that " such exemption shall not affect any laborer's or mechanic's lien, or extend to any mortgage thereon lawfully obtained." It is argued that this provision is not broad enough to include the lien declared by statute in favor of one who simply furnishes materials used in the improvement of a homestead; and that, consequently, the plaintiff, who furnished material only, which was procured and used by defendants in the improvement of their homestead, is barred of relief, by way of enforcement of said lien.
In the case of Merrigan v. English, 9 Mont. 113, the court refused to so construe and apply the provisions of the exemption statute just cited as to deny the enforcement of a lien on a homestead for material furnished — namely, a mantel — in favor of the mechanic who furnished the same, as well as the labor involved in setting said mantel in the building. The only real difference between that case and the one at bar appears to be that, in the former case, the lien claimant occupied the position of furnisher of material, as well as labor, on the premises, in shaping the material so furnished into the building; whereas, in the case at bar, the lien claimant furnished and delivered materia], without any labor towards the erection of the building on the premises. If the view urged by respondents is adopted the effect of such holding would appear to be that one who manufactured, hauled, and delivered the brick, or quarried, cut, hauled, and delivered the stone, or went into the forest, cut, manufactured, transported, and delivered the lumber contracted for, and used in the erection of improvements on a homestead, would be denied enforcement of the lien which the law declares he shall have to secure payment for such materials, because he would be simply the furnisher of material for the structure, like the plaintiff, and would, according to such construction and application of the exemption statute, not be included within the meaning and intent of the legislature in declaring that such exemptions shall not affect the liens of laborers and mechanics. We do not think such a view gives effect to the intent of the legislature, as manifest in these statutes. Even without any further expression of the legislative intent on this point than the clause of section 323 above referred-to, we could not adopt the view urged by respondents as giving effect to the intent of the law. We are satisfied that, in providing that such exemptions shall not affect any laborers' or mechanics' liens, the legislature referred to the liens for material and labor provided for by the statutes of this state commonly mentioned as the "Mechanic's Lieu Law." Such improvements, in fact, comprise labor bestowed upon material, both on and off the premises where the improvement is placed. Payment for the material is payment for the labor expended upon it through all the changes it has undergone, from its natural raw state, until placed in the structure.
But if, in looking at section 323 of the exemption statute alone, there is room to raise doubts as to the intent of the legislature, and room for contention that a homestead claimant may obtain material for improvement on his homestead, and enjoy the same without payment, in case no property can be found over and above the exemption, there is still another provision in the same statute which seems to give further light as to the intention of the legislature on the point under consideration, namely, a provision of section 328, wherein it is declared "that this act shall not be construed as to in any manner relate to judgments or decrees rendered on the foreclosure of mortgages, either equitable or legal." The lien under consideration is a specific encumbrance, existing through a positive enactment of the legislature, operating upon certain facts, and the lienor would seem to be entitled to his judgment of foreclosure, on showing the facts and a compliance with the statute, the same as a party, on making out his case, is entitled to judgment for debt, although the debtor may not have property subject to an ordinary execution. Now, when it comes to the execution of these judgments, it is found that the legislature has made a distinction between them in the statute relating to exemptions, declaring, in effect, that such exemptions shall not be construed to affect judgments or decrees of foreclosure of specific encum brances. If this is not the plain intendment of the provisions of the exemption statute last-above quoted, we think it would, be difficult to conceive or reasonably explain the intent those provisions manifest.
The rules of construction that several provisions of statutes relating to the same subject shall be considered and construed together, so that all the provisions shall be given reasonable force and effect, if possible (Code Civ. Proc., § 631), and that, "when a statute is equally susceptible of two interpretations, one in favor of natural right and the other against it, the former is to be adopted" (Code Civ. Proc, § 638), both, we think, demand such a construction of the statutes in question as will give force and effect to appellant's lien.
Respondents cite, in support of their position, Richards v. Shear, 70 Cal. 187, wherein the court held that the homestead was not subject to sale in satisfaction of a lien for material alone, furnished in the improvement thereof. While there is some likeness, but not entire similarity, in the provisions of the California statute and the clause of section 323 of our code above quoted, it does not appear that the California court was aided by such general proviso as we have in section 328 to show the intendment of the legislature. It has been shown that the exemption statute of Montana was not taken from California, in Lindley v. Davis, 7 Mont. 207, and Merrigan v. English, 9 Mont. 113, and considering the difference of form, as well as additional ¡provisions we have to construe and apply, it would seem to be an abdication of reason to follow the holding in the California case just cited. It should be further observed that in a recent case the supreme court of Nebraska placed a construction opposed to that of California on statutory provisions entirely similar. (Phelps etc. Windmill Co. v. Shay, 32 Neb. 19.) The holding in the case of Duncan v. Batemen, 23 Ark. 327, 79 Am. Dec. 109, cited by respondents, is based upon different statutory provisions than those prevailing in Montana. It was there held that the statute of Arkansas did not create a lien in favor of one who simply furnished material. Such might be the case. The lien depends on the statute for existence. But here it is not disputed that the statute imposes the lien in favor of appellant; and we think, without doubt, the legislature intended the homestead should be subject to a lien, and to foreclosure and sale thereunder for material obtained and used by the owners of the homestead in the improvement thereof.
Judgment is therefore reversed, and the cause remanded for proceedings in conformity with the views herein expressed.
Pemberton, C. J., concurs.