Basshor v. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad
Cases that cite this one
31 later published cases cite this decision. The 25 that cite it most often are listed here.
- Giles & Ransome, Inc. v. First National Realty Corp. (Md. 1965)
- Jaguar Technologies, Inc. v. Cable-LA, Inc. (District Court, D. Maryland 2002)
- Williams Constr. v. Constr. Equip. (Md. 1969)
- Williams Construction Co. v. Construction Equipment, Inc. (Md. 1969)
- Freeform Pools, Inc. v. Strawbridge Home for Boys, Inc. (Md. 1962)
- Fidelity & Deposit Co. v. Mattingly Lumber Co. (Md. 1939)
- Canton Lumber Co. v. Cooper (4th Cir. 1935)
- American Tank & Equipment Co. v. T. E. Wiggins, Inc. (Okla. 1934)
- Albuquerque Foundry & Machine Works v. Stone (N.M. 1930)
- Dennis v. Enke (S.D. 1929)
- Fitzgerald v. Neal (Or. 1924)
- Southern Surety Co. v. National Lumber Co. (Ind. Ct. App. 1919)
- United States ex rel. Samuel Hastings Co. v. Lowrance (United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas 1916)
- Gilbert Hunt Co v. Parry (Wash. 1910)
- Ward v. Yarnelle (Ind. 1910)
- Potter Manufacturing Co. v. A. B. Meyer & Co. (Ind. 1909)
- S. B. Luttrell & Co. v. Knoxville, La Follette & Jellico Railroad (Tenn. 1907)
- Cincinnati, Richmond & Muncie Railroad v. Shera (Ind. Ct. App. 1905)
- Hercules Powder Co. v. Knoxville, La Follette & Jellico Railroad (Tenn. 1904)
- Carpenter v. McCord Lumber Co. (Wis. 1900)
- State Ex Rel. Gwynns Falls Quarry Co. v. National Surety Co. (Md. 1925)
- Gill v. Mullan (Md. 1922)
- Church E. Gates & Co. v. Jno. F. Stevens Construction Co. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1915)
- Henry Bickel Co. v. National Surety Co. (Ky. Ct. App. 1914)
- Troy Public Works Co. v. . City of Yonkers (N.Y. 1912)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
delivered the opinion of the Court.
We do not see any grounds on which the mechanics’ lien claimed in this case can be sustained. The Hoopes Artificial Stone Company contracted with the defendant corporation to build its bridges over the “Big” and “Little Gunpowder.”
The masonry work was to be built of artificial stone, and this artificial stone was to be made of finely ground stone, sand and cement. For' the purpose of grinding the stone to be used in the manufacture of the artificial stone,
This seems to us to he stretching the lien law, rather beyond anything warranted either by the letter'or the spirit of the law. When the law says, the ‘material-man shall have a lien for all materials furnished for, or used in and about, the construction of bridges, it means such materials as ordinarily enter into, or are used in the construction of bridges, and which are fairly within the express or implied terms of the contract, between the owner and contractor. It does not mean, the machinery that may he used for the manufacture of the materials themselves. You might just as well say, that the mill by which the lumber is sawed, or the tools used by the mechanic in building a house, are materials furnished in the construction of the house, as to say that the machinery used in the manufacture of the artificial stone, is to be considered as part of the materials used in the construction of the masonry work of the defendants’ bridges. The machinery thus used is the plant of the contractor, and can in no sense he said to be materials furnished or used in building the bridges.
The mechanics’ lien law is, it is true, to he liberally construed, hut Courts have no power to extend it to cases, beyond the obvious designs and plain requirements of the statute.
Judgment affirmed.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.