Court Opinion

ID: 9690667
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 19:31:39.642749+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:04:50.859147
License: Public Domain

On Rehearing
COLEMAN, Justice.
Appellee requests clarification “for the purpose of clearing up some ambiguity which may arise” from the opinion and for guidance in other cases where surveyors and “engineers” claim a lien.
We have not found the word “engineer” in the transcript in this case. The word “engineer” appears in the opinion in a direct quotation from a cited case. In any event, the right to a lien depends, not on the title or classification of the person who furnishes the labor, but on the nature of the services rendered.
The decision in this case, as in all cases, is based on the record of the proceedings in the court below as set out in the transcript filed in this court. We cannot anticipate what circumstances may appear hereafter in other cases.
 If we were to express an opinion based on facts not shown by the record in this case, that opinion would be dicta and would not be binding in subsequent cases. This court has quoted with approval the following statement of this rule:
*681“ * * * It is a maxim, not to be disregarded, that general expressions, in every opinion, are to be taken in connection with the case in which those expressions are used. If they go beyond the case, they may be respected, but ought not to control the judgment in a subsequent suit, when the very point is presented for decision.’ * * * ” State ex rel. Wilkinson v. Murphy, 237 Ala. 332, 341, 186 So. 487, 496, 121 A.L.R. 283.
When another case involving different facts comes before us, it will be our duty to decide that case according to the law applicable^ the facts then presented.
We answered in the negative the question in this case as that question was stated in brief by the appellee. The question so stated is set out in the original opinion.
The allegations of the bill of complaint are that the services rendered by appellee included:
‘Boundary survey and topographic map of Tuskeegee Terrace .............. ‘For running in center line of Road ... .$1,291.25
No. 1 as per plot plan of Tuskeegee Terrace ................................$ 166.30’
From these allegations, we understand that the boundaries of the lots of the subdivision were actually staked out and marked on the ground, and that the center line of Road No. 1 was actually staked out and marked on the ground, all according to the plan or map prepared by appellee.
Our holding is that preparing such maps and placing stakes on the ground to mark the boundary lines of lots and streets according to such maps is not labor on an improvement within the meaning of the mechanics’ lien statute.
Opinion modified and extended. Application overruled.
LIVINGSTON, C. J., and LAWSON, SIMPSON, GOODWYN and MERRILL, JJ-, concur.