Baker v. Waldron

• Decision Date: 22 December 1898
• Parties: BAKER v. WALDRON et al.
• Court: Maine Supreme Court

42 A. 225

92 Me. 17

BAKER

v. WALDRON et al.

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine.

Dec. 22, 1898.

(Official.)

Report from supreme judicial court, Somerset county.

Suit by Henry Baker against Everett C. Waldron, and mill, to enforce a lien claim, which was reported by the presiding justice to the law court upon the facts as agreed by the parties. Judgment for plaintiff.

The parties agreed upon the following facts:

The plaintiff performed the work and furnished the materials described in his writ by virtue of an employment by the defendant Everett C. Waldron.

Prior to the commencement of the work, said Waldron made an oral contract with Herbert L. Seekins, owner of the land, before the work of the plaintiff was done, and ever since, to buy the land described in the writ for $300, and it was part of the agreement that said Waldron should build a dam across the stream running through the land, and should erect a factory upon the east side of the stream for manufacturing woolen goods. Said Waldron thereupon built the dam across said stream, which stream runs nearly north and south, and commenced the foundation for a factory building on the east side. The dam not only extended across the stream from west to east, but was built partly in the mill pond on the east side, in a northerly direction about 50 feet, and this 50 feel was intended for the foundation of the factory on its west side. Another portion of the dam extended about 47 feet to the east shore, and this was intended for the north foundation of the factory. In other words, a wooden dam crosses the river, and strikes the north side of the foundation nearly, if not quite, at right angles, and the north side wall runs in nearly a parallel course with the stream. That part of the north wall east of the dam, and a portion of the east side, were surrounded by water, and served the purposes of a dam, as well as of the foundation of the mill. The construction of the west side of said dam was nearly completed and the north side partly constructed, both being intended as part of the foundation for the factory. Part of the foundation work for the east and south sides of said factory was laid, consisting of stone work, but neither side completed, only in part.

The work and labor and material furnished by the plaintiff, and embraced in the present suit, were furnished and performed on the four sides of the foundation for the factory, and consisted in hauling the stone and placing it in position as far as the foundation was built. Before the foundation on the north, east, and south sides was completed, said Waldron failed, and stopped work, and the plaintiff stopped. No factory or other building was erected, or any timber hauled for the same.

After the work and labor and materials were furnished by plaintiff, the oral contract between Waldron and Seekins was reduced to writing, and signed by the parties, a copy of which was introduced in evidence by the plaintiff; and it is admitted that the oral contract under which Waldron employed the plaintiff is correctly set out in the written agreement. The plaintiff filed his claim for lien within the time required by statute, in the town clerk's office of St Albans, where the land is situate, and brought his suit within the statute period.

The owner of the land, said Herbert L. Seekins, claimed that the statute of liens does not apply, there never having been any building erected, but only part of the foundation for a building having been completed, by the work of the plaintiff and others, employed by said Waldron. He also claimed that there was no valid attachment on the writ The case was reported, upon the foregoing agreed facts, to the law court, who was to enter such judgment as should be in accordance with the right of the parties and the law of the case.

And if, in the opinion of the court, the plaintiff was not entitled to a lien judgment, it was agreed that he should have a judgment for the amount sued for against the defendant Wa...