D.L. Billings Co. v. Brand
| Decision Date | 01 March 1905 |
| Citation | 187 Mass. 417,73 N.E. 637 |
| Parties | D. L. BILLINGS CO. v. BRAND. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
Stebbins, Storer & Burbank, for petitioner.
Frank N. Nay and Edwd. N. Carpenter, for respondent.
These are petitions to enforce two mechanics' liens for labor and materials furnished by the petitioner in the execution of a contract with one McKay, the owner and builder of two houses in Dorchester, for the plumbing and heating. The contract was made on or about March 26, 1902, and was for $750 for each house. One of the houses was finished, to all appearances, on or about July 1, 1902, and the other on or before August 8th. The respondent purchased the premises of McKay in September, and the papers were passed in the registry of deeds, and the deed recorded on September 11 at 11:26 a. m. Later on the same day, and also on September 12th, the petitioner, at McKay's request, and without any actual knowledge on its part of the conveyance, did certain work on the premises, and thereafter, on September 30th filed a claim for a lien on each lot for the unpaid balance due to it under the contract. The respondent had no knowledge of the work that was thus done, or of the request by McKay and did not consent thereto, or authorize the same. The cases were heard together by the court without a jury, and the respondent asked the court to rule that the liens could not be enforced. The judge refused so to rule, and ruled that the petitioner was entitled to maintain its liens. The cases are here on exceptions by the respondent to this ruling and refusal to rule. The judge made certain special findings of fact, and, in addition to facts already stated, found that the only work done within 30 days of the filing of the liens in the registry of deeds was on September 11th, 12th, and 16th; that the work done on September 11th and 12th consisted in connecting a range and doing some work on the pipes of the bath tubs, and took, in all, about eight hours, and was included in the original contract between the petitioner and McKay; 'that the respondent had no knowledge or information or reason to believe, personally or by her agents, that the contract was not completed prior to September 11th, the day on which she took title,' and that 'the houses appeared to be completed inside and out, and examinations which had been made by the husband of the defendant, in her behalf, and others, had shown nothing apparently unfinished'; that no work was done by the petitioner on the premises between August 8th and September 11th; 'and that during that period the houses also appeared to be finished in all respects.' He also found that the work done on September 11th was begun afted 11:26 a. m., and that the work done on September 16th was done at the request of defendant's agent, and was not required under the contract between McKay and the petitioner.
There is nothing to show that the work which was done September 11th and 12th, and on which the petitioner relies to establish its liens, was not done in good faith, and it is expressly found that it was required by the contract between the petitioner and McKay. So far as appears, it was done under and by virtue of that contract, and in the fulfillment of it. The fact that the work relied on was not done till after the conveyance of the property to the defendant and the recording of the deed would not of itself be fatal to the establishment of the liens. It is well settled that a change of ownership before the contract is completed, and while the work is going on, will not defeat the right to a lien. Gale v. Blaikie, 126 Mass. 274; Amidon v. Benjamin, Id. 276; Dodge v. Hall, 168 Mass. 435, 47 N.E. 110. 'The lien continues,' it is said, 'till all that is called for by the contract has been done.' Neither does it affect the validity of the lien that it was not on...
To continue reading
Request your trial