Armour & Co. v. Western Construction Co.

Citations

• 36 Wash. 529
• 78 P. 1106
• 1905 Wash. LEXIS 624

Syllabus

<p>Liens — Railroads—Statutes — Title of Act — Sufficiency— Provisions Furnished Contractor not Embraced in Title of Act for Labor and Material Liens. Laws 1893, p. 32, § 1, entitled “An act creating and providing for tbe enforcement of liens for labor and material,” is not sufficiently broad to include a clause rendering a railroad contractor liable for “provisions” furnished to bim in tbe prosecution of tbe work, since “materials” as used in tbe lien laws, means something that becomes part of tbe finished structure; and the clause is not germane to tbe title and contravenes Const, art. 2, § 19.</p> <p>Indemnity — Bond Under Void Act — Common Law Obligation —Privity. Where an indemnity bond is given by a railroad contractor, under tbe provisions of an act void for want of sufficient title, conditioned for tbe payment for provisions furnished in the prosecution of tbe work, tbe surety is not liable to tbe person furnishing the materials as upon a common law obligation, since there was no privity of contract between them.</p>