DAVIS
v.
BILSLAND

U.S. | 1873-10-01
Dissenting, Justices CLIFFORD, DAYIS, and STRONG-.
18 Wall. 659 Supreme Court of the United States (1873) Positive Treatment
Also reported at: 21 L. Ed. 969 · 1873 U.S. LEXIS 1343 · SCDB 1873-175
Cited by 8 cases

AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.

Synopsis

In Davis v. Bilsland, the Supreme Court upheld a mechanic's lien claim that had been assigned to the plaintiff and gave it priority over a mortgage executed before the lienor commenced work, rejecting arguments that the lien could not be enforced by an assignee and that the mortgage held superior rights. The Court affirmed that mechanics' liens under Montana law have priority over all other encumbrances placed on property after commencement of construction, regardless of when the lien was filed, and that such liens may be properly assigned and enforced by the assignee in the assignee's own name.


© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.

Opinion of the Court
Mr. Justice BRADLEY

Mr. Justice BRADLEY delivered the opinion of the court.

The plaintiff assigns three errors:

Fh'st. That the action is a joinder in one suit of an action of assumpsit for work and labor, with a chancery proceed-, ing to foreclose the equity of redemption.

This ground of objection having been already fully considered in the case of Hornbuckle v. Toombs, needs no further discussion.

Secondly. That the claim of a mechanic for a statutory lien cannot be enforced by au assignee by a suit in his own name.

In answer to this objection it is sufficient to refer to the fourth section of the Civil Practice Act of Montana, which provides that actions shall be prosecuted in the name of the real party in interest. McKillicau had completed his claim by filing his lien before assigning it to the plaintiff It was perfectly lawful for him to assign his claim. It. was not against any principle of public policy to do so. When assigned, the claim really belonged to the plaintiff, and according to the code he was the proper person to bring suit upon it.

Thirdly. That the mortgage of the defendant was entitled to priority over the claims of the plaintiff, which were not filed till November, 1869, and Bilsland did not commence work until after the mortgage was given.

The language of the eighth section of the mechanic’s lien* law of Montana is unambiguous. The liens secured to the mechanics and material-men have precedence over all other incumbrances put upon the property after the commencement of the building. And this is just. Why should a purchaser or lender have the benefit of the labor and materials which go into the property and give it its existence and value? At all events the law is clear, and the decree was right.

Decree affirmed.

Dissenting, Justices CLIFFORD, DAYIS, and STRONG-.

*

Quoted supra, p. 659.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • Clarkson v. Louderback, 36 Fla. 660 (Fla. 1895)
    …that such liens are assignable are based, in our judgment, upon sounder reasoning, and we adopt their view. Among them are the following: Skyrme vs. Occidental Mill and Mining Co., 8 Nev. 219; Mason vs. Germaine, 1 Montana, 263; Davis vs. Bilsland, 18 Wall. 659; Iaege vs. Bossieux, 15 Gratt. 83, S. C. 76 Am. Dec. 189; Kerr vs. Moore, 54 Miss. 286; Tuttle vs. Howe, 14 Minn. 145, S. C. 100 Am Dec. 205. It is also true, as stated in Skyrme vs. Oc [*672] cidental Mill and Mining Co., supra, that “no particular…
  • Fosdick v. Schall, 99 U.S. 235 (U.S. 1878)
  • ELY v. N.M. & Ariz. R.R. Co., 129 U.S. 291 (U.S. 1889)
    …ranted in the same action, and. may be administered through the intervention of a jury or by the court itself,.according'to the nature of the remedy sought. Hornbuckle v. Toombs, 18 Wall. 648; Hershfield v. Griffith, 18 Wall. 657; Davis v. Bilsland, 18 Wall. 659 Basey v. Gallagher, 20 Wall. 670. By the Compiled Laws of Arizona, c. 48, § 256, “an action-may be brought by any person' in possession by himself - or his' tenant of real property against any person who claims an estate or interest therein adverse…

Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw