{
  "id": 2776212,
  "name": "The Cairo and St. Louis Railroad Company v. Wilson S. Watson et al.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Cairo & St. Louis Railroad v. Watson",
  "decision_date": "1877-06",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "531",
  "last_page": "533",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "85 Ill. 531"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill.",
    "id": 8772,
    "name": "Illinois Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "64 Ill. 452",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        5308211
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/64/0452-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 223,
    "char_count": 3254,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.561,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.740685114469968e-07,
      "percentile": 0.8318751402108772
    },
    "sha256": "5c0843a534eff9b838bcf83b6e96b340a9d259510a74dd88ab5515fc35d735ba",
    "simhash": "1:7b93243784f6e2b2",
    "word_count": 532
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:23:08.823727+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "The Cairo and St. Louis Railroad Company v. Wilson S. Watson et al."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Hr. Justice Scott\ndelivered the opinion of the Court:\nThe petition and interpleading in this case, were filed by parties who had done labor and furnished supplies to subcontractors, under the principal contractors who had undertaken to construct the Cairo and St. Louis Eailroad for the company, to establish a lien in their favor on the railroad property, under the provisions of \u201c An act to protect contractors, sub-contractors and laborers in their claims against railroad companies or corporations, contractors or sub-contractors.\u201d One point made, we think, is conclusive of the whole case, viz.: the statute has given no lien in favor of one who may have done labor or furnished supplies or materials to sub-contractors, for the construction of any railroad. The provisions of the statute are, that \u201c every person who, shall hereafter, as sub-contractor, material-man, or laborer, furnish to any contractor with any such railroad corporation, any fuel, ties, materials, supplies or any article or thing, or who shall do or perform any work or labor for such contractor,\u201d in conformity with the terms of his contract with such railroad company, shall have a lien on the property of the railroad corporation.\nIt will be perceived, the legislature has not seen fit, by the use of any apt words, to extend the lien given beyond subcontractors, and we have no right, by judicial construction, to extend the meaning of the act beyond the intention plainly expressed. The propriety of enlarging its provisions in that regard, is with the legislative department.\nThe act of 1869, giving liens in favor of mechanics, is expressed in almost the same language as in the act we are considering, and this court has, in several cases, declared the lien secured does not extend beyond the first sub-contractor. Rothgerber v. Dupuy, 64 Ill. 452; Ahern v. Evans, 66 id. 125; Newhall v. Kastens et al. 70 id. 156. Both acts are subject to the same construction, and neither can be construed otherwise consistently with the plainly expressed intention of the legislature.\nThis view of the law renders it unnecessary to notice other points discussed in argument. JSTo lien can be maintained in favor of petitioner or the parties interpleading. \u00a1None of them, by any proper allegation, show they are entitled to any lien on the property of the railroad company under the statute. Their claims are all against remote contractors, and it is sufficient, so far as the present decision is concerned, that the statute has given them no liens for the several amounts due them, that can be enforced against the railroad company or other defendants in this proceeding.\nThe judgment will be reversed, and cause remanded.\nJudgment reversed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Hr. Justice Scott"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Hessrs. Judd & Whitehousb, for the plaintiff in error.",
      "Hr. J. Dougherty, for the defendants in error."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "The Cairo and St. Louis Railroad Company v. Wilson S. Watson et al.\nLien on railroad\u2014does not extend beyond sub-contractor. The statute giving, a lien on railroads, like the mechanics\u2019 lien law, does not extend beyond sub-contractors. One furnishing materials to a sub-contractor has no lien against the railroad company or its property.\nWrit of Error to the Circuit Court of Union county; the Hon. Horros C. Crawford, Judge, presiding.\nHessrs. Judd & Whitehousb, for the plaintiff in error.\nHr. J. Dougherty, for the defendants in error."
  },
  "file_name": "0531-01",
  "first_page_order": 535,
  "last_page_order": 537
}