Court Opinion

ID: 9630153
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 10:02:54.755453+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:07:32.523161
License: Public Domain

Thiele, J.
(dissenting): I cannot agree with the conclusions stated in the court’s opinion.
At the conclusion of the trial below, the trial court made and filed a memorandum opinion in which it reviewed the facts and the law on which it later rendered a judgment, which I think was correct. Insofar as is necessary to note here the trial court said:
“The provisions of Section 55-207 are broader than the provisions of Section 55-208 and wisely so. (But see Skinner vs. Oil Company, 112 Kan. 1.c. 744.) Under the latter section, if Mr. Latta as owner of the drilling rig was acting in the capacity of a general contractor, the claimants performing labor for him in drilling could reach only the leasehold and under the Supreme Court decision in Given vs. Campbell, 127 Kan. 378, they could have no lien under any conceivable theory on the contractor’s equipment. The question is not quite so easy under Section 55-207 where the lien claimants’ contracts are with the owners of the leases who also own the equipment. In reaching the decision on this motion, the Court has treated the lien claims as being justified if at all, under Section 55-207. But even so, the drilling equipment, even if owned by the owners of the leasehold estate, was not of such character thaf it could be either (a) a part of the leasehold, (b) a building or appurtenance on the leasehold, (c) oil pipe line or gas pipe line, or (d) the material or supplies furnished by the claimants. Under Section 55-207 the property must fall within one of these four categories to be a ‘lienable item’. The statute does not extend the lien to ‘appliances’ used in the drilling even if they belonged to the lessees.
*322“It seems clear that in the case of Skinner vs. Oil Company,-112 Kan. 742, the rig to which the lien in that case was extended was a derrick erected over the well by the lessees, which like the casing, had the characteristics of being identified with the well itself. That decision is not out of harmony with the decision in the present case.
“An exception to the foregoing so far as the rig is concerned is the lien of a plaintiff for labor on the rig itself. But his lien is under a different statute, is against property different from that to which the liens of other plaintiffs attach; his cause of action cannot be joined with the others and no receiver is necessary for the protection of his rights.”
I would affirm the judgment of the district court.
Parker and Price, JJ., concur in the foregoing dissent.