51 Iowa 184 | Iowa | 1879
To entitle the plaintiffs to a lien the ties must have been furnished “under or by virtue of a contract with the owner or proprietor.” Eevision, § 1846. It is not required by the statute that the contract should be express or in writing. It may, therefore, be implied. That the general term contract includes written, oral, express and implied contracts is undoubtedly true. The conclusion is, therefore, irresistible that ■all these classes of contracts are within the statute.
In Cotes v. Shorey, 8 Iowa, 416, it is said: “This contract need not be in writing, nor need it be proved by direct and •positive evidence.” See, also, Jones v. Swan & Co., 21 Iowa, 181. The contract includes furnishing the materials and the use. The whole may be implied. It cannot be divided into parts, and one portion implied from the circumstances and
It is, however, said our statute and those of Ohio and New York are identical,-and that a construction has been adopted in those States in accord with the' views of counsel for the appellant. Choteau v. Thompson, 2 Ohio St., 114, and Hatch & Partridge v. Coleman, 29 Barb., 201, are relied on. We. have carefully read these cases, and in our opinion neither of them sustains the position of counsel. We cannot resist, the conclusion that the former, as a whole, is in direct opposition to the claim made; and as to the latter it is sufficient, to say if it were directly in point we should not be disposed, to follow it. Cotes v. Shorey, before cited, and Stockwell v. Carpenter, 27 Iowa, 119, when carefully considered, will be found to sustain, in a degree at least, the views herein expressed.
Evidence of the character indicated does not add to, vary or contradict the writing. 1 Greenleaf on Evidence, § 286; Cousins v. Westcott, 15 Iowa, 253; Singer Sewing Machine Co. v. Holcomb, 40 Id., 33.
It is also averred a lien statement had been filed. It is evident if it was not essential to the establishment of the lien that such a statement should have been filed. The question of a variance, between the one filed and the petition would be immaterial.
The petition, it will be observed, asks that the lien be established “on the land and right of way.” It also asked its establishment on the rolling stock. This-was done. If the rolling stock was appurtenant to and constituted a part of the real estate it was unnecessary to ask that the lien be established thereon.
We have, then, for determination the question whether one who furnishes ties for the purpose of being used in the construction of a railroad can have a lien on the rolling stock. If it is real estate, or constitutes a part of the “building, erection or improvement, ”• he has such lign; otherwise not.
Is the rolling stock appurtenant thereto in such sense as to make it a part of the' real estate. This question has been 'frequently mooted and largely discussed. It is said there is not an entire accord in the authorities in reference thereto. It was considered by this court in The City of Davenport v. The M. & M. R. Co., 16 Iowa, 348, and The City of Dubuque v. The I. C. R. Co., 39 Id., 56. In the first case, Lowe, J., seems to have been of the opinion that rolling stock was a part of the road. The other justices expressed no opinion on this point. In the last case Beck and Day, JJ., expressed the opinion that the rolling stock of such corporations was personal property. No opinion in relation thereto was expressed by the other justices, one of whom was on the bench when the first case was determined. The question is, therefore, an open one in this State.
The leading cases in which it is said it has been determined that rolling stock is real estate, to which our attention has been called, are Pennock v. Coe, 23 How., 117; Gee v. Tide Water Canal Co., 24 Id., 257; Minnesota Co. v. St. Paul Co., 2 Wall., 609; Railroad Co. v. James, 6 Id., 750; Scott v. C. & S. R. Co., 6 Bliss, 529; Farmers’ Loan and Trust Co. v. St. Joe R., 3 Dill., 412; and Pierce v. Emery, 32 N. H., 485.
No such question was determined in the case last cited. The only matter decided was as to the validity and effect of a mortgage on after-acquired property. This is evident from the subsequent case of the B. C. & M. R. v. Gilmore, 37 N. H., 410, which is an authority in favor of the proposition that rolling stock is personal property, and our attention has not been called to a single decision of a State court holding differently. We are not prepared to say, however, there are none.
It has been said: “Engines and ears are no more appendages of a railroad than are wagons and carriages of a high
In the late case of Williamson v. New Jersey Southern R., 6 Central Law Journal, 381, a case we have not seen, the Court of Appeals of New Jersey is said, in an elaborate opinion, to have held that rolling stock was personal property and not real estate.
The cases above cited in the federal courts, it is said, were distinguished, as we think they well might be, on the grounds, if no other, that in some of them the only question involved was as to the power to execute, and the effect and validity of mortgages as to after acquired property. In one rolling stock had, by the statute of the State under the laws of which the corporation existed, been declared to be a fixture, and in another the property in controversy consisted of the houses, lots and locks of a canal company.
It has been determined in the following eases, in addition to those above cited, that rolling stock is personal property. Randall v. Elwell, 52 N. Y., 521; Hoyle v. Plattsburgh R. Co., 54 Id., 314; Chicago & N. W. R. v. The Borough of Fort Howard, 21 Wis., 45; and Coe v. Columbus R. Co., 10 Ohio St., 372. In Hoyle v. Plattsburgh R. it is said the “want of the element of localization in use is a controlling and conclusive reason why the character of realty should not be given to rolling stock of a railroad, ” and in this thought it must, we think, be admitted there is much force. How can it be said that a car belonging to a railroad in this State, when being propelled through the State of New York at the rate of twenty miles an hour, is real property in this State? The proposition to us seems absurd. In The Ottumwa Woolen Mill Co. v. Hawley, 44 Iowa, 57, we approved of the criterion adopted in Teaff v. Hewitt, 1 Ohio St., 511, that in determining
About an afterward erected station house there never was any doubt, because it is permanently annexed to the real ■estate, such being the intention. Not so, however, as to rolling stock; hence the strain to prove it was covered by mortgages previously executed. For the reason above stated, and because the decided weight of authority, as we believe, is in favor of the rule, we hold that rolling stock is not real estate, and that the plaintiffs are not entitled to the lien thereon. In this respect the court below erred.
' The argument amounts to this: If a person contracts and .furnishes a million of bricks for the purpose of erecting a
The evidence shows the work of construction ceased in 1872. The lien was claimed on all there was in sight; that is, the constructed road extending between the actual termini. The word “entirety,” as applied to a railroad, means the tangible• property. It does not include a projected or paper line which may never be built. This we think must be true as between the mechanic seeking a lien and the corporation.
Suppose a corporation is duly organized to construct a railroad three hundred miles long, employs engineers, and actually locates the line, but does nothing more. Could the engineer obtain a lien on such a line ? We think not, because there is nothing tangible on which it could be based. It is neither real estate, a building, erection or improvement. But suppose
The California statute provides that all persons “furnishing materials for, or employed in the construction of, any bridge, ditch, flume or aqueduct, shall have a lien upon the-structure.” Construing this statute in Canal Co. v. Gordon, 6 Wall., 561, it was held that where a portion of a canal had: been completed and a contractor had constructed an extension thereof that he was not entitled to a lien on the whole, but only on the portion constructed by him. This case goes far beyond the requirements of the case at bar, and if it be law there can be no question but that the ruling of the court below is correct.
VII. In November, 1876, a motion was filed for a more specific statement. Several causes were assigned, some of which were obviated by the amendment to the petition. As. to the residue, and the motion filed in December afterward, the same were properly overruled, as will, we think, sufficiently appear from the foregoing view. Having, as we believe, disposed of all matters presented by counsel, although some of' them may not have been referred to in terms, the result is the-judgment below-, must be
Modified and affirmed.
(For opinion on rehearing see p. 714, post.)