Stout, 121 Ill. 571, 13 N. E. 182; 21 Can. S. C. 406 ; Joslyn v. Smith, 2 N. Dak. 53, 49 N. W. 382 ; Blakeley v. Moshier, 94 Mich. 299, 54 N. W. 54 ; in others it has been held that the lien Is not affected ; Balkcom v. Lum ber Co., 91 Ga. 651, 17 S. E. 1020, 44 Am. St. Rep. 58 ; Hill v. Building Co., 6 S. Dak. 160, 60 N. W. 752, 55 Am. St. Rep. 819; Jones v. Moores, 67 Hun (N. Y.) 109, 22 N. Y. Supp. 53; Davis v. Parsons, 157 Mass. 584, 32 N. E. 1117.
A lien cannot be acquired against certain classes of property which are exempted on the ground of public policy. Thus public school-houses ; Board of Education of Salt Lake City v. Brick Co., 13 Utah 211, 44 Pac. 709 ; Portland Lumbering & Mfg. Co. v. School Dist. No. 1, 13 Or. 283, 10 Pac. 350; Mayrhofer v. Board, 89 Cal. 110, 26 Pac. 646, 23 Am. St. Rep. 451; court-houses, public of fices, or jails, are exempt ; Wilson v. Hunt ington County Com'rs, 7 W. & S. (Pa.) 197; Hall's Safe & Lock Co. v. Scites, 38 W. Va. 691, 18 S. E. 895 ; Bell v. Mayor, etc., of City of New York, 105 N. Y..139, 11 S. E. 495 ; Nunnally v. Dorand, 110 Ala. 539, 18 South. 5 ; City of Dallas v. Loonie, 83 Tex. 291, 18 S. W. 726; in Kansas a lien can be obtained against public property ; Board of Com'rs of Jewell County v. Mfg. Co., 52 Kan. 253, 34 Pac. 741; but in Oklahoma the court re fused to follow the Kansas decisions, though the statute was adopted from that state, on the ground that Kansas 'stands almost alone in so holding ; Hutchinson v. Krueger, 34 Okl. 23, 124 Pac. 591, which see for an exhaustive discussion of decisions of nearly all the states. See, also, 41 L. R. A. (N. S.) 315, and note ; a church has been held the subject of a mechanic's lien ; Harrisburg Lumber Co. v. Washburn, 29 Or. 150, 44 Pac. 390. A lien cannot extend to the valves con stituting part of the water works of a cor poration organized to furnish a city with water ; Chapman Valve Mfg. Co. v. Water Co., 89 Wis. 264, 60 N. W. 1004, 46 Am. St. Rep. 830 ; Guest v. Water Co., 142 Pa. 610, 21 Atl. 1001, 12 L. R. A. 324 ; or to the plant of such corporation ; Chapman Valve Mfg. Co. v. Water Co., 89 Wis. 264, 60 N. W. 1004, 46 Am. St. Rep. 830; or a street railway ; Pacific Rolling Mills Co. v. Const. Co., 68 Fed. 966, 16 C. C. A. 68 ; 29 U. S. App. 698 ; Front Street Cable Ry. Co. v. Johnson, 2 Wash. 112, 25 Pac. 1084, 11 L. R. A. 693 ; or a power house connected with the same.; Pacific Rolling Mills Co. v. Const. Co., 68 Fed. 966, 16 C. C. A. 68; 29 U. S. App. 698 ; Oberholtzer v. Ry. Co., 16 Pa. Co. Ct. Rep. 13 ; or to the property of an electric light company having a franchise to occupy streets ; Badger Lumber Co. v. Power Co.,
48 Kan. 187, 30 Pan. 117, 30 Am. St. Rep. 306 ; Forbes v. Electric Co., 19 Or. 61, 23 Pac. 670, 20 Am. St. Rep. 793.
The exemption from liability was held to extend to a quasi public corporation neces sary in operating a system of water works by which it furnished water to a school house ; Foster v. Fowler, 60 Pa. 27. And see Taylor Lumber Co. v. Carnegie Institute, 225 Pa. 486, 74 Atl. 357, where the building erect ' ed on the land was not for a purely public purpose, and an act permitting mechanic's liens to be filed against such a building with out reference to the land was held unconsti tutional.
Some question has arisen whether mechan ics' lien laws apply to railroads. When the statute gives a lien on "buildings" they are said not to be covered ; 2 Jones, Liens § 1618; otherwise if the word used is "struc ture," "erection," "improvement"; id. § 1624; and a lien has been upheld against ties used in construction ; Neilson v. R. Co., 44 Ia. 71.
The same doctrine of public policy which forbids mechanics' liens on public build ings, etc., has been said to apply to rail roads, so far that such a lien, if given by statute, is generally held to attach only to the entire line and not to a section of it; 2 Jones, Liens § 1619; but Deady, J., chal lenges this statement; Giant-Powder Co. v. R. Co., 42 Fed. 470, 8 L. R. A. 700, where will be found a collection of cases by states on mechanics' liens on railroads; see- also Brooks v. R. Co., 161 U. S. 443, 25 L. Ed. 1057. Railroad depots are not exempt; Hill v. R. Co., 11 Wis. 214; Boston, C. & M. R. R. v. Gilmore, 37 N. H. 410, 72 Am. Dec. 336.
As to mechanic's lien on vessels under state statutes see subtitle Maritime Liens, supra.
In some cases it is held that the equitable title of a purchaser of land, who has not fully acquired the title, may be subject to a statutory lien ; Weaver v. Sheeler, 118 Pa. 634, 12 Atl. 558 ; Getto v. Friend, 46 Kan. 24, 26 Pac. 473 ; Meyer Bros. Drug Co. v. Brown, 46 Kan. 543, 26 Pac. 1019; Pinkerton v. Le Beau, 3 S. D. 440, 54 N. W. 97 ; contra, Saunders v. Bennett, 160 Mass. 48, 35 N. E. 111, 39 Am. St. Rep. 456; Dalrymple v. Ram sey, 45 N. J. Eq. 494, 18 Atl. 105 ; Robbins v. Arendt, 148 N. Y. 673, 43 N. E. 165. In such case the lien has been held to be subordinate to the right of the vendor for unpaid pur chase money ; Fuller v. Pauley, 48 Neb. 138, 66 N. W. 1115. A mechanic's lien in such case attaches only to the interest of the pur chaser ; Getto v. Friend, 46 Kan. 24, 26 Pac. 473. That the lien attaches on the comple tion of the contract of sale was held in Brown v. Jones, 52 Minn. 484, 55 N. W. 54.