Court Opinion

ID: 9790038
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 01:45:28.174768+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:37:25.897429
License: Public Domain

COMPTON, Justice (dissenting). The decision in this case must turn on a construction of the statute, § 67-16-3, 1953 Comp., as it is perfectly obvious that not a single authority cited factually bears upon the case, even remotely. I fail to see by what reasoning the majority finally concluded that the plaintiff had contracted to “construct, alter, * * * add to or improve” an “excavation, or other structure, project, development or improvement.” Significantly, the opinion does not specify which of these activities plaintiff contracted to do. It seems clear that this portion of the statute defining a contractor and requiring a license refers to the activity of building generally and related subjects. Had the plaintiff contracted to sink a mining shaft, drill water wells, or drill test holes for the development of copper ore, no doubt he would not be exempted from the operation of the statute because the shaft, the wells and the test holes would be the very things the contract required to be done. Turning to the evidence, I quote from the testimony of Mr. Moya, president of defendant company, as follows: “Q. What did that work consist of ? A. Mining. “Q. Is that blasting? A. Yes, sir. “Q. And what else? A. Moving the ore. Moving overburden of the surface, the first time. “Q. In other words, removing the top soil so as to uncover the ore? A. Yes, sir. “Q. Now, what kind of equipment did Mr. Salter use in connection with this project? A. A small bulldozer. “Q. What else? A. A jack hammer for drilling holes; of course, dynamite and caps and fuse.” Clearly, all that was to be done under this contract was to remove the top soil, blast the rock so that it could be loaded and hauled to a stockpile. As I view the effects oí the majority decision, a contract to haul sand, pick out flagstones, or construct earthen ponds for compensation, other than wages, falls within the statute. If correct, a contract to shovel black soil from an arroyo, or dig mesquite roots for fuel, would fall within its purview. How could any of these things be done without leaving an excavation? I cannot believe the legislature intended the construction expressed by the majority opinion; therefore, I dissent.