Field & Slocomb v. Consol. Mineral Water Co.

• Decision Date: 08 July 1903
• Citation: 55 A. 757,25 R.I. 319
• Parties: FIELD & SLOCOMB v. CONSOLIDATED MINERAL WATER CO.
• Court: Rhode Island Supreme Court

55 A. 757

25 R.I. 319

FIELD & SLOCOMB

v. CONSOLIDATED MINERAL WATER CO.

Supreme Court of Rhode Island.

July 8, 1903.

Petition by Field & Slocomb against the Consolidated Mineral Water Company for a mechanic's lien. Granted.

Argued before STINESS, C. J., and TILLINGH AST and DOUGLAS, JJ.

R. E. Lyman, for petitioner.

Barney & Lee and Van Slyck & Mumford, for respondents.

DOUGLAS, J. The petitioners, as architects, prepared plans and specifications for. and supervised and directed, the construction of certain buildings and fixtures there in for the respondents, and claim therefor the lien provided for in chapter 206 of the General Laws of 1890. The parts of the statute which are material upon the question presented read as follows: "Section 1. Whenever any building * * * shall be constructed * * * such building * * * together with the land * * * is hereby made liable and shall stand pledged for all the work done in the construction, erection, or reparation of such building * * * and for the materials used in the construction, erection, or reparation thereof which have been furnished by any person," etc.

The great weight of authority, under substantially similar statutes, gives the lien to supervising architects both for the labor of supervision and the labor of preparing plans. Knight v. Norris, 13 Minn. 473 (Gil. 438); Gardner v. Leek, 52 Minn. 522, 54 N. W. 746; Wanganstein v. Jones, Gl Minn. 262, 63 N. W. 717; Von Lorn v. Mengedoht, 41 Neb. 525, 59 N. W. 800; Phoenix Furniture Co. v. Putin-Bay Hotel Co. (C. C.) 66 Fed. 683; Mulligan v. Mulligan, 18 La. Ann. 20; Mutual Benefit L I. Co. v. Rowand, 26 N. J. Eq. 389; Arnoldi v. Gouin, 22 Grant's Chan. (Ottawa) 314; Johnson v. McClure (N. M.) 62 Pac. 983 (where the cases are reviewed); Stryker v. Cassidy, 76 N. Y. 50, 53, 32 Am. Rep. 202. In Pennsylvania an architect employed to make plans, and supervise the construction in accordance therewith, is entitled to a lien (Bank of Penna v. Gries, 35 Pa. 423); but one who furnishes plans alone, and does not supervise, is not entitled (Price v. Kirk, 90 Pa. 47; Rush v. Able, 90 Pa. 153). In Nebraska a lien is given for merely furnishing plans. Henry & Coatsworth Co. v. Halter, 79 N. W. 616, 619. In Iowa it has been held that an architect has no lien for furnishing plans if they are not used. Foster & Libbie v. Tierney, 91 Iowa, 253, 59 N. W. 56, 51 Am. St. Rep. 343. In Illinois and Ohio it is doubted whether the lien will apply for plans if there is no supervision. Taylor v. Gilsdorff, 74 Ill. 354; Phoenix, etc. v. Hotel Co. (C. C.) 66 Fed. 683. In Mitchell v. Packard, 168 Mass. 467, 47 N. E. 113, 60 Am. St. Rep. 404, the court allowed an architect for the labor of supervising, but not for the labor of preparing the plans. The Massachusetts statute allows the lien for "labor performed or furnished * * * and actually used in the erection," etc. We think this construction stricter than the spirit of our st...