Eclipse Steam Manufacturing Co. v. Nichols
Utah Supreme Court
A.ppeal from the Third District Court. Action to foreclose a Mechanics Lien. At the preceding Term of the Court the judgment of the Lower Court was reversed; but upon the main point, as to the time within which a material man must file his Notice of Lien, the opinion then rendered affirmed the action of the Court below.
Read the full summary
A.ppeal from the Third District Court. Action to foreclose a Mechanics Lien. At the preceding Term of the Court the judgment of the Lower Court was reversed; but upon the main point, as to the time within which a material man must file his Notice of Lien, the opinion then rendered affirmed the action of the Court below. Upon petition, a rehearing' ivas granted, and after argument the following . opinion was rendered by a majority of the Court. made the following points •: . That material furnished.,/or a building, although not actually used in its construction,. constitutes a lien, if there…
1Dissent
Boreman, J.,
delivered the following dissenting opinion:
I cannot concur in the views expressed in the opinion just rendered. The only point in the case has reference to the proper construction of section 2 of the Mechanics Lien Law. Laws of Utah, 1869, p.. 8, Ch. 12, section 2.
The Mechanics Lien Law is in derogation of the Common Law, and must be strictly construed. 2 Cal. 90; 29 Cal. 286; 13 Gray 132. Andit is a well established rule of construction that every part of a Statute should have effect given to it, if it be reasonable, and not inconsistent with the plain purpose of the Law.
The…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Jackson v. Feather River & Gibsonville Water Co.California Supreme Court · 1859
- Bottomly v. RectorCalifornia Supreme Court · 1852
- Cox v. Western Pacific RailroadCalifornia Supreme Court · 1873
- Davis v. LivingstonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1865
- Squires v. Fithian's AdministratorSupreme Court of Missouri · 1858
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.