Alesina v. Stock
Alesina v. Stock
Opinion of the Court
The appellant, Martin Alesina, filed his complaint in the District Court of Madison County, for the purpose of enforcing a lien upon a certain mining claim, for work and labor performed upon said mine; also for certain accounts for similar labor of which he claims to be the owner, performed by Joseph Torisana and John Allesandri. The complaint avers that John C. Stock is the owner of the mine, but that he had leased it for a term of years to Martinetti, and that
By section 2 of an act passed at the extra session of the Fifteenth Legislative Assembly of this Territory, and approved September 14, 1887, section 821 of the General Laws of the Territory was so amended that work and labor performed upon a mine was a lien for forty-five days only upon said mine, after the work and labor had been performed; and from the statement as it appears upon the face of the complaint more than forty-five days had elapsed from the completion of the work and labor in each of the accounts sued on before the said accounts were filed with the county clerk and recorded, as required by said act. It thus appears that they were barred by the Statute of Limitations at the time the action was brought. (Alvord v. Hendrie, 2 Mont. 115-122; Davis v. Alvord, 94 U. S. 545, 547.)
We deem it unnecessary to pass upon the question whether the labor performed by Martin Alesina in hauling ore and wood, and making trips to Butte and Silver Star for the lessee, was a lien upon said mine or not, as it cannot be enforced by reason of the Statute of Limitations.
Appeal dismissed at cost of appellant.
Judgment affirmed.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- MARTIN ALESINA v. JOHN C. STOCK AND ABRAM MARTINETTI
- Status
- Published
- Syllabus
- Lien for Work — Filing of account for same. — A complaint in an action to foreclose certain liens for work and labor performed on a mine, showed that the accounts for said liens had not been filed with the county clerk and recorder until forty-five days after the work had been performed. A demurrer to the complaint was sustained. Held, that the complaint showed on its face that the liens were barred, under section 2 of an act of the extra session of the Fifteenth Legislative Assembly, approved September 14, 1887; and that the demurrer was properly sustained. (Álvord v. Hendrie, 2 Mont. 115, cited.)