Conroy v. Pine Belt Oil Co.

79 So. 523, 143 La. 879, 1918 La. LEXIS 1552
CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana
DecidedJune 29, 1918
DocketNo. 23069
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 79 So. 523 (Conroy v. Pine Belt Oil Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Louisiana primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Conroy v. Pine Belt Oil Co., 79 So. 523, 143 La. 879, 1918 La. LEXIS 1552 (La. 1918).

Opinion

PROVOSTY, J.

Plaintiff sues for the price of labor and materials in improving defendant’s oil well, Murray No. 1, on S. E. % of N. E. %. of Sec. 12, T. 20 N., R. 16 W., parish of Caddo, of which land defendant had an oil and mineral lease. The trial court and the Court of Appeal gave him a moneyed judgment. For the security of the payment of said debt, plaintiff claimed the privilege provided for by article 3248 of the Code. This the said two courts denied him; and also rejected his claim for four months’ salary.

We agree that the contract for said salary was not proved; 'but we think the privilege ought to have been allowed.

Tlie said article 3249 of the Civil Code reads in part as follows:

“Creditors who have a privilege on immovables, are:
“2. Architects, undertakers, bricklayers, painters, master builders, contractors, subcontractors, journeymen, laborers, cartmen and other workmen employed in constructing,, rebuilding or repairing houses, buildings, or making other works.
“3. Those who have supplied the owner or other persons employed by the owner, his agent or subcontractor, with materials of any kind for the construction or repair of an edifice or other work, when such materials have been used in the erection or repair of such houses or other works.
“The_ above-named parties shall have a lien and privilege upon the building, improvements or other work erected, and upon the lot of ground not exceeding one acre, upon which the building, improvement or other work shall he erected; provided, that such lot of ground belongs to the persons having such building, improvement or other work erected; if such building, improvement or other work is caused to be erected by a lessee of the lot of ground, in that case the privilege shall exist only against the lease and shall not affect the owner.”

Our brethren below thought that the entire subject-matter of this article was covered by Act 229, p. 494, of 1916, and that therefore this later legislation superseded and repealed the article. The rule with respect to implied repeal resulting from the whole subject-matter being covered by the supposedly repealing legislation is stated in 36 Cyc. 1077, as follows:

“When two statutes cover, in whole or in part the same subject-matter, and are not absolutely irreconcilable, no purpose of repeal being clearly shown, the court, if possible, will give effect to both. Where, however, a later act covers the whole subject of earlier acts and embraces new provisions, and plainly shows that it was intended, not only as a substitute for the earlier acts, but to cover the whole subject then consid[881]*881ered by the Legislature, and to prescribe the only rules with respect thereto, it operates as a repeal of all former statutes relating to such subject-matter, even if the former acts are not in all respects repugnant to the new act. But in order to effect such repeal by implication it must appear that the subsequent statute covered the whole subject-matter of the former one, and was intended as a substitute for it. If the latter statute does not cover the entire field of the first and fails to embrace within its terms a material portion of the first, it will not repeal so much of the first as is not included within its scope, but the two will be construed together, so far as the first still stands.”

Said Act 229 reads:

“Section 1. Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the state of Louisiana, that any mechanic, builder, artisan, workman or laborer or other ' person, who shall do or perform any work or labor upon or furnish any materials, machinery or fixtures for any building, erection or improvements upon land, including contractors, subcontractors, materials, furnishers, mechanics and laborers, under or by virtue of any contract written or verbal, with the owner of any tract, parcel or piece of land, or with the trustee, or agent of such owner, upon complying with the provisions of this act, shall have for his work or labor performed or materials, machinery or fixtures furnished, a privilege upon such building, erection or improvements and upon the land belonging to such owner or proprietor on which the same is situated, and upon the proceeds or balance of the contract price in the hands of the owner, due or to become due to the contractor, to secure the payment of such work or labor performed, or materials, machinery or fixtures furnished. Such privilege shall be preferred to all other privileges or incumbrances which may attach to or upon the said building, erection or improvement and upon the said land, or either of them, and upon the proceeds or balance of the contract price in the hands of the owner, due or to become due to the contractor.
“Sec. 2. Be it further enacted, etc., that any person claiming ■ a privilege as aforesaid shall file in the office of the recorder of mortgages of the parish in which the land is situated, a statement setting forth the amount claimed and the items thereof as nearly as practicable, the name of the owner, name of the contractor, name of the claimant, and the description of the property subject to the privilege, verified by affidavit. Such statement must be filed within forty-five (45) days after the acceptance of the work by the owner of the land on which work was done or his trustee or agent.
“Sec. 3. Be it further enacted, etc., that any person who shall furnish any such material or perform any such labor under a subcontract with the contractor, or as an artisan, or day-laborer in the employ of such contractor may obtain a privilege upon such lands, and upon the proceeds or balance of the contract price in the hands of the owner, due or to become due to the contractor, from the same time, in the same manner, and to the same extent as the original contractor, for the amount due Mm for such material and labor; and any artisan or day-laborer in the employ of such subcontractor may obtain a privilege upon such land and upon the proceeds or balance of the contract price in the hands of the owner, due or to become due to the contractor, from the same time, in the same manner, and to the same extent as the subcontractor, for the amount due him for such material and labor, by filing with the recorder of mortgages in the parish in which the land is situated, witMn the time provided in section two of this act, a statement verified by affidavit setting forth the amount due the claimant, and the items thereof as nearly as practicable, the name of the owner, the name of the contractor, the_ name of the subcontractor, the name of the claimant, and a description of the property on which the privilege is claimed.
‘‘Sec. 4. Be it further enacted', etc., that all claims for privileges and rights of actions to recover thereof, under this act, shall be assignable so as to vest in the assignee all rights and remedies herein given subject to all defenses thereto that might be made if such assignment had not been made. Such assignment must be made by separate instrument of writing and such assignment is to have effect only from the date of its recordation in the office of the recorder of mortgages in the parish in which the land is situated.
“Sec. 5.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Courshon v. MAURONER-CRADDOCK INC.
219 So. 2d 258 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1969)
Henly v. Kask
11 So. 2d 230 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1942)
Emmer v. Rector
143 So. 11 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1932)
Broussard v. Broussard
8 La. App. 635 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1928)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
79 So. 523, 143 La. 879, 1918 La. LEXIS 1552, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/conroy-v-pine-belt-oil-co-la-1918.