Creer v. Cache Valley Canal Co.
Idaho Supreme Court
APPEAL from District Court, Bingham County. “The court erred in holding that a detached portion or part of a structure can be sold under execution to enforce a mechanic’s lien; or that part only of a structure is subject to. coercive sale.”
Read the full summary
APPEAL from District Court, Bingham County. “The court erred in holding that a detached portion or part of a structure can be sold under execution to enforce a mechanic’s lien; or that part only of a structure is subject to. coercive sale.” To sustain the contention would leave the reservoirs, the remainder of the canals (ten miles), the franchise and water rights not covered by plaintiffs’ lien, if not absolutely, nearly valueless; besides, when sold, the purchaser-has bought something that can be of no use to him. I claim that such proceeding is not only against public policy, but is not…
1Opinion of the CourtMorgan, J.
(After Stating the Facts.) — This appeal exhibits a most extraordinary state of facts. It is stipulated that the defendants owe the plaintiffs the sum demanded in their complaint, with interest thereon. It further appears from the record that quite a large part of the property upon which this lien is claimed, and upon which the said James Thompson •claims to have a mortgage, which he wishes the court to declare to be a prior lien to that of the plaintiffs, had no existence whatever when this said mortgage was given. That 'the plaintiffs constructed the whole of the north and south branches of…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Uihlein v. UihleinWisconsin Supreme Court · 1960
3Cited by7 opinions
- Hill v. Twin Falls Salmon River Land & Water Co.Idaho Supreme Court · 1912
- Jarvis v. State BankSupreme Court of Colorado · 1896
- Naylor v. Lewiston & Southeastern Electric Railway Co.Idaho Supreme Court · 1908
- State Bank v. PlummerSupreme Court of Colorado · 1912
- Ban v. Columbia Southern Ry. Co.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1902
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.