CHAPTER I IN GENERAL § 73. Definition.-The application of the law of mechanics' liens to the varying relationships of architect, owner and builder is so frequent, that it seems appropriate that some mention in special detail should be made in regard to it. At the same time, it must be borne in mind, that the law of liens is, in itself, sufficient to provide material for an entirely separate treatise of goodly length. The lien law in a given case can only be properly determined by a reference to the particular laws of the State within the jurisdiction of which the case arises, and the various lien statutes are so dissimilar, in many and substantial details, although all based upon substantially the same general basic principles and ideas, that in the space which can be here allotted to the subject there must, necessarily, be included statements merely of the broader and more fundamental rules, together with examples and notes of such decisions and statutes as are of more than ordinary applicability to the architectural profession and its problems. A mechanic's lien has been defined to be: "A claim created by law for the purpose of securing a priority of payment of the price and value of work per formed and materials furnished in erecting or repairing a building or other structure, and as such it attaches to the land as well as the buildings erected thereon." And again to be: “a statutory lien upon buildings and other improvements on realty and the realty, favoring certain classes of workmen to secure them priority or preference of payment of compensation for work or materials." 2 And yet again to be: "a modern statutory right, designated to encourage the erection of improvements, and to protect those whose labor and materials enter into their construction." " The lien may be said to be in the nature of a mortgage, or of a statutory quasi-mortgage founded upon consent, or of a notice of lis pendens or attachment." 5 874. History of Lien Legislation.—The rule whereby a mechanic, workman, laborer, or material man, contributing by his services to the improvement of realty, is now so generally accorded the right of a lienor was unknown at common law which neither recognized nor allowed these lien 1 VanStone v. Stillwell & Bierce Manufacturing Co., 142 U. S. 128, 136. 2 Tommasi V. Archibald, 114 N. Y. A. D. 838. 8 Hammond v. Darlington, 84 S. W. (Missouri, 1904) 446, 449. Loomis v. Knox, 60 Conn. 343; Throckmorton v. Shelton, 68 Conn. 413; Kenny v. Gage, 33 Vt. 302; Merchants Insurance Co. v. Mazange, 22 Ala. 168; Pratt v. Tudor, 14 Tex. 37. 5 Cummings v. Consolidated, etc., Water Co., 61 Atl. 353. 65 Words & Phrases, 4463; Sawyer v. Schick, 30 Okla. 353. rights. Equity, too, formerly failed to recognize the lien doctrine.8 Gradually the feeling that one had enhanced the value of real estate by his services or by materials furnished or incorporated in the property, should be given a claim against the property, as a means of securing the payment or reimbursement due him for the labor or materials given, became so pronounced as to take form in definite legislation. A number of statutes were passed applying the lien doctrine to certain localities in various of the States, Pennsylvania appearing to have the honor of having in 1803 prepared the first of the mechanic's lien laws.10 875. Early Conception and Development of Doctrine. The earliest conception of a mechanic's lien, as appears from the title itself, was that of a statute designed to protect mechanics, as such.11 It was the extension of this primary conception of the doctrine which resulted in the protection under the mechanic lien laws not only of "Birmingham Iron Foundry v. Glen Cove Starch Manfg Co., 78 N. Y. 30; Van Stone v. Stillwell, etc., Manfg. Co., 142 U. S. 128; Withrow Lumber Co. v. Glasgow, etc., Co., IOI Fed. 863; Durling v. Gould, 83 Me. 134; Ex parte Schmidt, 62 Ala. 252. 8 Withrow Lumber Co. v. Glasgow, etc., Co., 101 Fed. 863; Slack v. Collins, 145 Ind. 569; Ellision v. Jackson Water Co., 12 Cal. 542; Turnes v. Brenckle, 249 Ill. 394; Ward v. • Cockerill v. Loonam, 36 Hun. (N. Y.) 353; Rafter v. Sullivan, 13 Abbts. Pr. (N. Y.) 262; Hickey v. Schwab, 64 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 8; Heamann v. Porter, 35 Mo. 137. 10 Coddington v. Dry Dock Co., 31 N. J. L. 477. 11 Savannah, etc., R. Co. v. Grant, 56 Ga. 68; Sweet v. James, 2 R. I. 270. mechanics, but of all persons, broadly speaking, who have performed work upon, or perfected or made repairs or improvements to, real property; 12 such as house-painters, 13 paper-hangers,14 and construction companies.15 By extension of the doctrine and the application of greater liberality in the provisions of the lien statutes, the mechanic's lien law as it now stands was brought about so that to-day provisions for mechanics' liens are to be found not only generally in the States of the United States 16 but throughout the various provinces of the Dominion of Canada as well.17 England, probably by reason of the controlling precedent and effect of the common law, did not join in the movement so general in the New World; 18 and while the movement was especially marked in the Southern States, as in Texas and in California, it was not favorably received in Mexico.19 § 76.-Constitutionality.-As was naturally to be expected in the case of legislation of this character affecting a special class or classes, and creating rights and privileges long unrecognized, the 12 Sweet v. James, 2 R. I. 270. 13 Martine v. Nelson, 51 Ill. 422. 14 Freeman V. Gilpin, I Phila. 23. 15 Tennis Bros. Co. v. Wetzel, etc., R. Co., 140 Fed. 193. 16 Shaw v. Young, 87 Me. 271. 17 Revised Statutes Ontario 1897, Ch. 153; Revised Stat utes British Columbia 1911, Ch. 154; Rev. Stat. of Manitoba 1902, Ch. 110; Consol. Stat. New Brunswick 1903, Ch. 147; Consol. Stat. of Newfoundland 1892, Ch. 88. 18 Shaw v. Young, 87 Me. 271. 19 Macondray v. Simmons, I Cal. 393; Stowell v. Simmons, I Cal. 452. |