Gannon v. Shepard
| Decision Date | 10 May 1892 |
| Parties | GANNON et al. v. SHEPARD. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
Francis
Burke, for petitioners.
Jesse C. Ivy, for defendant.
The petitioners furnished labor in the erection of a house on the respondent's land, and the justice who tried the case has found that it was furnished by her consent, and established a lien. The first question is whether there was evidence upon which her consent could be found. The house was built by the respondent's husband as a gift to her. There was evidence that she believed he was building it at his own personal expense, and that he was not her agent, and that the house was not built for a home for her husband and herself. But it was near her residence, and was built with her knowledge. She could and did see the workmen of the petitioners at work upon it from time to time, and upon one occasion was in the house with her husband, and saw the petitioners at work there. She did not give any directions to them while they were at work nor did she object to their furnishing labor or materials nor give the notice provided for in Pub.St. c. 191, § 4. Whether the labor was or was not furnished by her consent was an inference of fact to be drawn by the justice who tried the case. If the mere fact that the respondent knew of the erection of the house by her husband would not justify the inference, she knew that it was intended as a gift to herself, and that she would be benefited by the work. The ruling that there was evidence of her consent in these circumstances was correct. It was for the presiding justice to draw or to decline to draw the conclusion, and his finding cannot be revised upon exceptions. Westgate v Munroe, 100 Mass. 227; Arnold v. Spurr, 130 Mass. 347; Wheaton v. Trimble, 145 Mass. 345, 14 N.E. 104.
The respondent further contends that the petitioners have no lien, because they were subcontractors under a contractor who had agreed, in writing under seal, with her husband, to build the house, and who in the contract had stipulated not to sublet except by the written consent of the other party. But the court found, upon evidence not stated in the bill of exceptions, that this provision was orally waived. It is therefore unnecessary to consider whether, if it had remained in force, it would have prevented the petitioners from claiming a lien for work done under their subcontract....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Reid v. Miller
...see Dyer v. Swift, 154 Mass. 159, 28 N.E. 8; Wheaton v. Trimble, 145 Mass. 346, 14 N.E. 104, 1 Am. St. Rep. 463, and Gannon v. Shepard, 156 Mass. 355, 31 N.E. 296. We are of opinion that the jury were rightly permitted find that the husband was the wife's agent in procuring the material for......
-
Beston v. Amadon
... ... in some--not all--there was evidence that he was the general ... agent or manager for his wife. Gannon v. Shepard, ... 156 Mass. 355, 31 N.E. 296; Dyer v. Swift, 154 Mass ... 159, 28 N.E. 8; Jefferds v. Alvard, 151 Mass. 94, 23 ... N.E. 734; ... ...
-
Vickery v. Richardson
...follow from the owner's conduct when accompanied with knowledge of the circumstances under which the work is being done. Gannon v. Shepard, 156 Mass. 355, 31 N.E. 296. After the petitioner had submitted his proposal, but its acceptance, and when the parties, with the architects, were upon t......
-
Wahlstrom v. Trulson
... ... The ... third request for instructions was properly refused. There ... was abundant evidence of consent on the part of the ... respondent. Gannon v. Shepard, 156 Mass. 355, 31 ... N.E. 296. [43 N.E. 186] Whether he knew or did not know that ... the contract had been awarded without the ... ...