270 ST. L. & NORTH ARKANSAS R. Co. v. ROGERS. [7.2. ST. LOUIS & NORTH ARKANSAS RAILROAD CO. v. ROGERS. Opinion delivered March 5, 1904. RAILROAD-LIEN-SERVICES y oR CONTRA CTOR. —One employed by another having a contract to build a railroad to keep store and sell goods and keep accounts for him, to keep accounts between him and the laborers emplyed in building the railroad, to feed his live stock, and to build shanties for the laborers to live in, cannot enforce a lien against the railroad company therefor as for valuable services performed, under Acts 1899, p. 145. (Page 271.) 2. S A ME-LABOR OE MINOR SON. —A father whose minor son performed labor on the roadbed of a railway company is entitled to a lien therefor, under Acts 1899, p. 145. (Page 272.) Appeal from Carroll Circuit Court. JOHN N. TILLMAN, Judge. Reversed. J. V. Walker, for appellant. O'Connor was a necessary party to the action. 59 Tex. 587 62 Tex. 70. The act of 1889 is in derogation of the common lam and creates a charge against property without the assent of th owner, and must be strictly construed. 54 Ark. 522 ; 51 Arl 315; 59 Ark. 84; 65 Ark. 183; 42 Ped. 475; 65 Md. 99 ; 23 Fec 703 ; 3 Elliott, Railroads, io68. Chew & Fitzhugh, for appellees. O'Connor was not a necessary party. I Foster, Fed. P § § 5 0 ; 5 2 9 59 ; 62 Tex. 70 ; 54 Fed. 598 ; 81 Va. 125. The act ( 1887 construed. 59 Ark. 81 ; 65 Ark. 183. The provisions
ARK.] ST. L. & NORTH ARKANSAS R. Co. v. ROGERS. 271 the act of 1889 have no application to contracts prior to the passage of the act. 70 Ark. 262; 71 S. W. 267. Who entitled to a lien under the act ? 44 N. W. 47; 39 Wis. 260 ; 42 Fed. 470; 54 Fed. 723 ; 37 S. W. 135. BATTLE, J. The St. Louis & North Arkansas Railroad Company undertook to build and construct a railroad from Eureka Springs to Harrison in this state. J. B. Colt & Son Co. were employed to build the same, and it employed William O'Connor to construct a small part of the roadbed of the railway. While he was in the performance of his contract, O'Connor owned and kept a stock of goods, wares and merchandise to sell to the laborers in bis employment and others, and employed J. L. C. Rogers and his minor son to sell the same. J. L. C. Rogers was also employed to keep the time of t • he laborers in O'Connor's employment, and to keep the accounts between him and such laborers, and the account for goods, wares and merchandise sold. He and his son rendered services in the performance of this contract. The son, in addition thereto, performed six or eight days' work on the roadbed of the railway,.and J. L. C. Rogers "looked, after the feed of O'Connor's live stock," and worked five or six days in setting up camp and building shanties. for the laborers to live in." For these services he claimed that there was owing to him the sum of $258.75. He brought a suit in the Carroll Hrcuit court against the railroad company, and thereby sought to establish and enforce a lien on its railroad for the payment p f this sum. The court found that he was entitled to recover the 258.75 for such services, and entitled to a lien on the railroad 5or the same, and rendered a decree accordingly ; and the railroad :ompany appealed. Appellee, Rogers, bases his claim for a lien for services, mcept labor on roadbed, on so much of the act entitled "An act 0 amend sections 6251, 6252 and 6253 of Sandels & Hill's Digest," approved March 31, 1899, as is as follows : "And every )erson who performs any valuable services, manual or profes-ional, for any railroad, by or from which such railroad receives L benefit, shall have a lien on said railroad * * for said ervices," etc. To recover under this clause the services must le performed for the railroad compan y , and beneficial to it. The ervices of appellee and son were rendered O'Connor, and he
272 [72 received the entire benefit from them. He is therefore not entitled to a lien on the railroad for such services. He is however entitled to a lien on the railroad for the six or eight days' labor performed by his son on the roadbed. The decree of the circuit court is reversed, and the cause is remanded, with instructions to the court to enter a decree in accordance with this opinion.
You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.