Ainslee v. Boscketti

• Citation: 230 Mass. 577
• Parties: JAMES W. AINSLEE v. MARY A. BOSCKETTI.
• Decision Date: 25 June 1918
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

230 Mass. 577

JAMES W. AINSLEE v. MARY A. BOSCKETTI.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Essex.

June 25, 1918

May 20 1918.

Present: RUGG, C J., LORING, BRALEY, DE COURCY, & CROSBY, JJ.

Mechanic's Lien. Statute, Repeal.

For the purpose of enforcing a mechanic's lien which came into existence before January 1, 1916, R.L.c. 197, Section 10, was not repealed by St.

1915, c. 292 Section 13. Following See v. Kolodny, 227 Mass. 446 .

PETITION, filed in the District Court of Lawrence on January 25, 1916, under R.L.c. 197, Section 10, to enforce a mechanic's lien on a building and the land upon which it was situated owned by the respondent on Broadway and Holly Street in Lawrence.

A certificate of the lien sought to be enforced was filed by the petitioner in accordance with the provisions of R.L.c. 197, Section 6, in the registry of deeds for the Northern District of Essex on November 24, 1915.

On February 16 1916, the respondent filed in the District Court a motion that the petition be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. On February 23, 1917, judgment was entered in the District Court establishing the lien in the sum of $23.76 with $15.04 costs. The respondent appealed to the Superior Court.

The case was heard on appeal by Dubuque, J., the facts being admitted as they appeared in the records and pleadings. No question was raised as to the sufficiency of the statement filed in the registry of deeds. The respondent filed a motion to dismiss the petition for want of jurisdiction. The judge denied the motion and made the following rulings:

"1. That the District Court of Lawrence, and the Superior Court on appeal, had jurisdiction under the provisions of R.L.c. 197 to entertain said petition for enforcement of liens;

"2. That St. 1915, c. 292, did not abrogate the provisions of R.L.c. 197 as to lien proceedings begun subsequently to the passage of said act but prior to its taking effect;

"3. That the provisions of St. 1915, c. 292, in repealing the provisions of R.L.c. 197 did not oust the court of its jurisdiction to entertain the petition for the enforcement of the lien;

"4. That, even if such procedure were invalid, it was cured by the enactment of St. 1916, c. 163, and St. 1917, c. 213;

"5. That the provisions of St. 1916, c. 163 of St. 1917, c. 213, were merely procedural, therefore not unconstitutional as having retroactive effects on substantive rights."

The judge ordered that a decree be entered for the petitioner establishing the lien; and the respondent alleged exceptions to the rulings of the judge and the order for the decree.

The case was submitted on briefs. J. A. O'Mahoney, for the respondent.

W. T. Rochefort, for the petitioner.

LORING, J. On October 30, 1915, the petitioner "completed his labor" under a contract for the alteration of a building situate within the jurisdiction of the District Court of Lawrence. On November 24, 1915, he filed in the registry of deeds the certificate called for by R.L.c. 197, Section 6 and on January 25, 1916, he brought a petition in the District Court of Lawrence to enforce the lien to which he had thus become entitled. Judgment in his favor was rendered by the District Court and by the Superior Court on appeal. The case is here on exceptions which raise the question of the jurisdiction of the District Court and of the Superior Court on appeal to entertain the petition and render the judgments which they rendered.

The contention of the respondent is that the jurisdiction of the court had come to an end on January 1, 1916, because of the repeal of R.L.c. 197, Section 10 (on which its jurisdiction rested) by St. 1915, c. 292, Section 13, which (by force of Section 14 of that act) took effect on January 1, 1916.

The contention is disposed of by the decision of this court in See v. Kolodny, 227 Mass. 446 .

In that case two petitions to enforce mechanics' liens were brought before January 1, 1916, but they were not disposed of until after that day. The contention in that case was that the jurisdiction of the Superior Court over these petitions came to an end on January 1, 1916, by force of St. 1915, c. 292, Sections 13, 14. It was decided that it did not. That conclusion was not reached on the ground that by a general statutory provision there is a saving clause in case of the repeal of a statute as far as pending causes are concerned. There is no such statute in civil cases. Nor was the decision in See v. Kolodny put upon the ground that since the Superior Court had jurisdiction under the new act (St. 1915, c. 292, Section 4) it was not of consequence that its jurisdiction under R.L.c. 197, Section 10, had come to an end. It was decided in See v. Kolodny that the Superior Court had jurisdiction because: "In this Commonwealth a mechanic's lien is not created upon the filing of a certificate and a petition but is created as soon as labor or material, or both, is performed or furnished on real estate. The lien is an interest in the property, stands as security for the payment of the debt, is a vested right and is not an additional and extraordinary remedy which the Legislature may discontinue at pleasure. . . . In accordance with the general rule the statute must be construed as intended to have a prospective and not a retroactive effect where, as in the case at bar, retrospective construction will interfere with a vested right. . . . That such was the intention of the Legislature see St. 1916, c. 163, St. 1917, c. 213."

...