74 Mo. 374 | Mo. | 1881
This was a suit to enforce a lien against the road-bed and the buildings, erections and improvements on the defendant’s railroad, from a point on the line
The only question which it is necessary for us to determine is, whether, under the act of March 21st, 1873, now embodied in sections 3200 to 3216 of the Revised Statutes, giving liens upon railroads for labor and materials furnished for their construction, a lien can be filed against that portion of the road, only, for which the labor and materials were furnished. Section 3200 is as follows : “All persons who shall do any work or labor in constructing or improving the road-bed, rolling-stock, station-houses, depots, bridges or culverts, of any railroad company incorporated under the laws of this State, or owning or operating a railroad within this State, and all persons who shall furnish ties, fuel, bridges or materials to such railroad company, shall have, for the work done and labor performed, .and for the materials furnished, a lien upon the road-bed, .station-houses, depots, bridges, rolling-stock, real estate and improvements of such railroad, upon complying with the provisions hereinafter mentioned; Provided, such work and labor is performed, and such materials are furnished, under and in pursuance of a contract with such railroad company, its agents, contractors, sub-contractors, lessees, •trustees or construction company, organized for the uses and purposes of such railroad company, or having in charge the building, construction or improvement of such railroad or any part thereof.” Section 3202 provides that all per
It has been several times declared by this court to be against public policy to permit detached portions of a railroad to be sold under an ordinary execution, or under a judgment enforcing a mechanic’s lien. Dunn v. N. M. R. R. Co., 24 Mo. 493; McPheeters v. Merimac Bridge Co., 28 Mo. 467; Schulenburg v. M. C. & N. W. R’y Co., 67 Mo. 442. In the case of the St. Louis Bridge & Construction Co. v. Memphis, C. & N. W. R’y Co., 72 Mo. 664, the-question now before us was not discussed, but it was- taken, for granted that the lien extended to the whole of the- road lying within this State, and so stated. In Schulenburg v. M. C. & N. W. R'y Co., supra, the act now under consideration was adverted to, but not construed, as the lien sought to be enforced in that case was based upon the general law in relation to mechanics’ liens ; but the views-of this court previously expressed against the policy of permitting a railroad to be sold out in detached parcels,, were- distinctly re-asserted.
We are not of opinion, as is strenuously contended- by plaintiff’s counsel, that a change of policy in. this- regard was contemplated by the legislature in the-passage-of the-act of March 21st, 1873. On the contrary,.we are of' opinion that the spirit of the entire act, and the very language-, of the sections above cited, indicate a purpose- to adhere to-the rule previously announced by this court, prohibiting the sale of railroads, by sections, under execution. It will be observed by reference to the general law in regard to» mechanics’ liens, that in order to fix a lien upon any property under that act, it is essential to give “ a true description of the property, or so near as to- identify the same»
It does not follow, however, from the fact that the nen attaches to all the rolling-stock of the railroad, as well as-the entire road-bed, that there must be a sale of the whole rolling-stock of the road under a judgment enforcing alién against such road. While the road-bed must be sold as an entirety, if sold at all, the rolling-stock and other-movable property of the road may be sold in such quantities as may be necessary to satisfy the judgment. This