222 F. 781 | 9th Cir. | 1915
(after stating the facts as above). The appellant contends that its lien was superior to that of the appellee’s mortgage and had not expired as to the latter at the time it filed its cross-bill to foreclose. The court below held against the appellant upon the last proposition, and if it was correct in that ruling, it will be unnecessary for us, as it was for that court, to determine which was the prior lien.
*785 “No lien provided for in this chapter binds any building, mining claim, improvement or structure for a longer period than six months after the claim has been filed, unless proceedings be commenced in a proper court within that time to enforce such lien; or, if a credit be given, then six months after the expiration of such credit; but no lien shall continue in force under this chapter for a longer period than two years from the time the work is completed, or credit given, unless proceedings to enforce the same shall have been commenced.”
The true construction of the first clause of the section just quoted is, we think, the controlling question in the case. As will be seen, it in effect expressly declares that no such lien given by the Idaho statute shall bind any structure to which it has attached for a longer period than six months after the claim has been filed, unless proceedings be commenced in a proper court within that time to enforce such lien. In other words, the remedy is by the statute made a part of the right „created. It was so held in respect to an analogous statute, by the Supreme Court in the case of The Harrisburg, 119 U. S. 199, 214, 7 Sup. Ct. 140, 147, 30 L. Ed. 358. That was a suit in admiralty brought by the widow and child of one Rickards to recover damages for his ■death, caused by the alleged negligence of a schooner of which he was first officer. As no such suit could be maintained in the courts of the United States in the absence of an act of Congress or a statute of a state, the action depended wholly upon a statute of the state of Pennsylvania, which gave to the widow and child a cause of action therefor, but in doing so expressly declared that “the action shall be brought within one year after the death and not thereafter.” The Supreme Court in deciding the case expressly held:
“The statutes create a new legal liability, with the right to a suit for its enforcement, provided the suit is brought within 12 months, and not otherwise. The lime within which the suit must be brought operates as a limitation of the liability itself as created, and not of the remedy alone. It is a condition attached to the right to sue at all.”
The applicability of that decision of the Supreme Court to the facts of the present case is not, we think, affected by the subsequent decision of the same court in the case of Bear Lake Irrigation Co. v. Garland, 164 U. S. 1, 17 Sup. Ct. 7, 41 L. Ed. 327. In that case there was a lien law of the state of Utah very similar to the statutory provisions of the state of Idaho, and there the question was, as it is here, between one who claimed a lien for work done and a trust company which claimed a mortgage lien upon the same property, the work there having been commenced by the contractor prior to the execution of the mortgage, and the statute in force at the time of the execution of the contract and of the commencement of the work requiring the claimant to commence an “action to enforce his lien within ninety days from the time when he filed his claim for a lien.” Before the expiration of the 90 days thus provided for, and, indeed, before the completion of the contractor’s work or the filing of his claim of lien, the state of Utah passed, on the 12th day of March, 1890, another lien law, making provisions for the creation and enforcement of such liens, section 21 of which provided that:
“No Hen claimed by virtue of this act shall hold the property longer than one year after filing the statement firstly described in section 10, unless an*786 action be commenced within that time to enforce the same” (Laws 1890, c. 30)
—and containing a clause formally repealing the old act, the latter having been passed in 1888. Notwithstanding such repeal, the Supreme Court construed the new statute as a continuation of the old one, with the modifications as provided in the new act, saying (164 U. S. 11, 17 Sup. Ct. 9, 41 L. Ed. 327):
“Upon comparing the two acts of 1888 and 1890 together, it is seen that they both legislate upon the same subject, and in many cases the provisions of the two statutes are similar and almost identical. Although there is a formal repeal of the old by the new statute, still there never has been a moment of time since the passage of the act of 1888 when these similar provisions have not been in force. Notwithstanding, therefore, this formal repeal, it is, as we think, entirely correct to say that the new act should be construed as a continuation of the old with the modification contained in the new act.”
And the court held that the 90 days allowed by the act of 1888 after, the filing of the claim of' lien, for the commencement of an action to enforce it, was extended by section 21 of the act of 1890 to one year, and that as such extension became effective before the work in that case was completed and the claim of lien filed, suit for the labor lien' claimed was not required to be commenced before the expiration of one year from the time of the filing of the claim, the court saying:
“The two acts in question here are of a similar nature, relating to the same general subject-matter, and making provisions for the creation and enforcement of mechanic’s liens. The new act of 1890, although in terms repealing the earlier act, is yet in truth, and for the reasons already given, a continuation of that act with the modifications as provided in the new one. One of those modifications is the extension of the time in which to commence the action to foreclose the lien after the filing of the statement which claims it. Where at the time of the passage of the new act the proposed lienor has only entered upon the execution of his contract and has not yet completed the work under it, we think that at least as to him the provision enlarging the time in which to commence the action to foreclose the lien is applicable, and there is no retroactive effect thereby given to that provision of the new act.
“It may be asked what effect is given under this construction to the language of the proviso contained in section 32 of the act of 1890, already quoted. The answer is that the mere enlargement of the time in which to commence the action, at least in a case where the time had not yqt arrived in which to file any statement of the plaintiff’s claim for a lien, does not affect any right or remedy provided for in the old act. The right, as that term is used in the statute, consisted of the right of sale of the property in order, if necessary, to obtain payment of the money due the contractor. The rem1 edy consisted of the taking of certain proceedings by which this sale was to be accomplished. Prior to the arrival of the time when one of these steps was to be taken, an alteration of the statute by which the time to take that step might be enlarged was not an alteration of the ‘right’ or of the ‘remedy,’ as those terms are used in the statute, nor did it in any way affect either; it was simply an alteration of the mere procedure in the course of an employment of a remedy, the remedy itself remaining untouched or unaffected by such alteration. In .this case such an enlargement of time to commence an action was given before the time -had arrived in which the action could have been commenced under the old statute. The new statute was prospective in its operation, even as applied to this case. Of course, if the new act had curtailed the time in which to bring the action, after the time had commenced to run under the old statute, totally different considerations would spring up, and what was a mere alteration of procedure, having really nothing to do with a remedy in the one case, might, in the other, most seriously*787 affect it, and lienee come wifliin tlie proviso in question. Under the facts of this case the right or remedy of the plaintiff was not touched, or, in the language of the proviso, was not •affected’ by the enlargement of the time in which to commence the action, and therefore the proviso' did not take the plaintiff’s case out of the application of the section in the new act providing such enlarged time.
“Under the construction given by us to the act of 1890, as a continuation of that of 1888, with modifications, the question as to which act the lien is claimed under is not specially material. In effect, it is one act, and those labors, etc., which were performed before the passage of tlie act of .1890 are added to those performed thereafter. The lien is really claimed by virtue of the fact that at the time when the contract was entered into the statute of Utah provided such a right or remedy, and although the action to foreclose the lien was commenced under the provisions of the act of 1890, yet the right itself commenced under the old act. That, right is not affected by any provision of the new act, and although it is claimed that tlie right- and the remedy must go together under the old act, as they are preserved in the same language, yet, for the reasons already given, the time in which to commence the action is no part of the ‘remedy’ as that wordvis used iu the proviso, and an extension of that time may be provided for In tho> new act without in any way affecting the right or remedy of the lienor where the facts are the same as in this case.
“It may be assumed that where a statute creates a right not known to the common law, and provides a remedy for the enforcement of such right, and limits the time within which the remedy must be pursued, the remedy in such ease forms a part of the right, and must be pursued within the time prescribed, or else the right and remedy are both lost; but it does not, therefore, follow that the plaintiff’s right to a lion and to maintain this action must be based solely upon the act of 1888.
“We must bear in mind the position of the plaintiff when the act of 1890 was passed. He had not then completed his contract, and could not therefore file any statement of claim, nor could he commence any action. The particular time in which he would be allowed to commence his action (provided a sufficient time in fact were given) was, under such circumstances, mere matter of procedure as distinguished from remedy. The remedy would not I hereby be altered, because tlie remedy consisted in filing the statement and In commencing the action. The time in which to do either would he matter of procedure only. Hence, when - the act of 1890 was passed, which enlarged 1he time in which to commence the action already provided for, such enlargement did not affect any right or remedy of the plaintiff. It did not affect either, because the provision applied only to procedure and not to right or remedy, and therefore the plaintiff could avail himself of the time given him by the act of 1890 In which to commence his action as one of the steps In procedure by which the remedy for a violation of the contract by the enforcement of foreclosure of the lien would be accomplished.
"We conclude that the lien of the plaintiff was valid and superior to the mortgage of the Mortgage Trust Company.”
There has been no modification of the Idaho statute expressly declaring- that no mechanic’s or materialman’s lien shall bind any property for a longer period than six months after the claim has been filed, unless proceedings be commenced in a proper court within that time to enforce such lien, or if a credit be given, then within six months after the expiration of such credit, nor lor a longer period than two years from the time that the work is completed or credit given, unless proceedings to enforce the same shall have been commenced.
Under similar statutes the Supreme Courts of several of the states have held that tlie time specified for the commencement of action for the en [orcement of such liens enters into and is a part of the right of lieu. See Davis v. Bartz, 65 Wash. 395, 118 Pac. 334; Dunphy v.
Decisions based upon statutes which do not make the requirements in respect to the time of the commencement of suit a part of the right to the lien'claimed are inapplicable.
“The argument that the limitation does not apply to a mortgage because the validity and amount of a mechanic’s lien may be established in a suit between the claimant and the owner of the property alone, and that the only issue in which the mortgagee is interested, namely, the date or relative dignity of the lien, may be tried out in a subsequent suit to redeem, in so far as it has any force at all, rests upon an erroneous assumption, which is that the mortgagee has no right to question the amount or validity of the claim of lien. These are issues which the incumbrancer, equally with the owner, may raise, and for that purpose the mortgagee is entitled to his day in court. If, for instance, a lien were asserted for the value of material which was never furnished for use in a. structure covered by the mortgage, it must be clear that the mortgagee may, by showing the fact, defeat the lien, or reduce the amount thereof.”
In Hassall v. Wilcox, 130 U. S. 493, 9 Sup. Ct. 590, 32 L. Ed. 1001, a statute of Texas, passed in 1879, gave a lien for wages to mechanics and laborers, on a railroad, prior to all other liens, and authorized its enforcement, in a suit, by a judgment for the sale of the railroad, and provided that it should not be necessary to make other lienholders defendants, but that they might intervene and become parties. It did not provide for any notice by publication. In 1882, a railroad in Tex-: as was mortgaged to secure bonds. In 1884, a creditor of the railroad company holding such labor claims, in a suit against it alone, in a court of the state, obtained a judgment for his claim and lien, and for the sale of the railroad. In a suit afterwards brought by a bondholder, in the Circuit Court of the United States, to have the rights of the creditors of the company ascertained, and a receiver appointed, it was referred to a master to report on the priority of claims. The creditor by'judgment presented his claim;, it was objected to by the bondholder
The judgment is affirmed.