54 P.2d 891 | Colo. | 1936
A SUIT for wages and foreclosure of mechanic's lien. Judgment was given as prayed, and error is assigned.
Fisher, employed by the Tiger Placers Company, alleged that a certain sum was due him for labor performed, in aid of which he filed statement of lien, seeking to charge therewith a dredge boat and other property of the company. As assignee of ten like claims he made similar allegations. Issues were formed, but other than as to the eleventh cause of action, the right of lien as to all the causes, and the company's cross complaint, judgment entered conformably to stipulation of counsel in open court.
[1, 2] Pursuant to notice the cause was set to be tried October 9, 1935. On that day the company sought continuance and the matter was reset for October 24, 1935. The company again moved for continuance, showing the indisposition and absence of its president. The motion was denied. The statute contemplates speedy disposition of causes of this nature. C.L. 1921, § 6454; Howard v. Fisher,
[3] It is contended that the court erred in refusing a jury trial on the company's cross complaint for damages. Since the complaint was in equity, neither party was entitled to trial by jury. Neikirk v. Boulder Nat.Bank,
[4, 5] That a dredge is regarded as subject to lien, see Colorado Gold Dredging Co. v. Stearns-Roger Mfg.Co.,
As to the company's cross complaint, our study leads *224 us to conclude the trial court rightly resolved it had not been established.
[6] Concerning the eleventh cause of action, the contention is that since part of the claim consisted of expenses, such part cannot be regarded as compensation, hence is not within the protection of the lien act. StateBank of Chicago v. Plummer, supra, is authority otherwise.
Let the judgment be affirmed.
MR. CHIEF JUSTICE CAMPBELL and MR. JUSTICE BUTLER concur.