Cleverly v. Moseley

• Decision Date: 03 January 1889
• Citation: 19 N.E. 394,148 Mass. 280
• Parties: CLEVERLY v. MOSELEY.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

148 Mass. 280

19 N.E. 394

CLEVERLY v. MOSELEY.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk.

January 3, 1889

COUNSEL

Charles F. Hall, for petitioner.

H.E Falls and S.H. Tyng, for respondent.

OPINION

KNOWLTON J.

The only question in this case is whether the description of property in the petitioner's statement, filed in the registry of deeds, was sufficient to answer the requirements of the statute. Such a description should be "sufficiently accurate for identification." Pub.St c. 191, § 6. But section 8 of the same chapter provides that "the validity of the lien shall not be affected by any inaccuracy in the statement relating to the property to be covered by it, if such property can be reasonably recognized from the description."

In the case at bar the name of the owner was given only according to the best knowledge and belief of the petitioner, and it turned out that he was mistaken. While to conform to the law the owner's name should always be given in the statement, if possible, the omission of it, or a mistake in it, if it is not known to the claimant, is not necessarily fatal to the lien. McPhee v. Litchfield, 145 Mass. 565, 14 N.E. 923. An incumbrance created by filing a statement claiming a lien can in no event remain but a short time before the lien is enforced by proceedings in court. The possible existence of such an incumbrance is commonly suggested by the condition of the property so far as to put purchasers upon inquiry; and the statute contemplates that one examining a title may find it necessary to look beyond the names indexed in the registry, to the descriptions of the lands in the statements recently filed.

By the description before us one is directed to that part of Englewood avenue which lies between Roxbury avenue and Beacon street. He is told that the lot is situated near Roxbury avenue. As if to indicate that the description may be indefinite or inaccurate in other particulars, it is said that the lot "may be identified by the house standing thereon; the first two stories being of stone, and the third story of wood." The description of the house was not inaccurate nor misleading. If the lower part of it was properly called a basement, it was, according to the definition of lexicographers and the common understanding of the word, a story of the building. This house was about 300 feet northerly of Englewood avenue, with the land all open between it and the avenue. Up to this point there was no...