Court Opinion

ID: 9864751
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-25 16:09:29.341613+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:31:30.731168
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice Butler
dissenting.
I cannot concur in the views expressed in paragraph 4 of the opinion. Upon those who assert that the derrick ceased to be personal property and became subject to the liens is cast the burden of proving that such is the fact. There is a total failure of such proof. If the lessee placed the derrick on the property for the purpose of drilling the well, and especially if it was the purpose to use it in connection with the production of oil in the event of oil being found — in other words, use it' as part of the oil-producing plant — the liens would attach.- In Haskell v. Gallagher, *29020 Ind. App. 224, 50 N. E. 485, and Showalter v. Lowndes, 56 W. Va. 462, 49 S. E. 448, cited in the opinion, the lessee owned the derrick. In McElwaine v. Hosey, 135 Ind. 481, 35 N. E. 272, cited in the opinion, the exact point involved in the present case was not presented. Where the lessee owns the derrick used in his business, it is a fair inference that he intended to make the derrick a part of the oil well, in other words, a part of his oil-producing plant. Cary Hardware Co. v. McCarty, 10 Colo. App. 200, 50 Pac. 744; Dawson v. Scruggs-Vandervoort Barney Realty Co., 84 Colo. 152, 268 Pac. 584. In the present case, no such intent can be inferred. It is not claimed that the lessee owned the derrick, or had, or had contracted to acquire, any interest in it. The Terminal Drilling ' Company was not the lessee, nor did it have, or contract to acquire, any interest in the lease. It merely had a contract to drill a well for the lessee. To enable it to do so, it brought its derrick and other equipment and placed them on the premises. It was not in the oil business, but in the business of drilling wells for others. There is no evidence to the effect that its oil derrick and other drilling equipment were not moved from place to place, in the regular course of the company’s business, as drilling contracts were obtained. In the erection of large buildings, contractors move on to the premises their derricks and other equipment, to enable them to do the work; and when the work is ended, these are removed by the contractors to some other place, and from time to time to still other places, for use in the erection of other buildings. Are such derricks subject to liens as a part of the building? Clearly not. If there is a difference between such a case and the present one, I fail to see it; it certainly is not made to appear in either the pleadings or the evidence.