Huntley v. Holt

• Decision Date: 17 February 1890
• Citation: 58 Conn. 445,20 A. 469
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: HUNTLEY v. HOLT et ux.

20 A. 469

58 Conn. 445

HUNTLEY

v. HOLT et ux.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

Feb. 17, 1890.

Appeal from superior court, New Haven county.

J. W. Alling; for appellant. W. B. Stoddard and S. C. Loomis, for appellees.

ANDREWS, C. J. Mary A. Holt, the wife of Alfred Holt, is the owner of certain land in the town of New Haven which she holds "to her sole and separate use, free from any control of her husband." Some time prior to the 8th day of September, 1877, Mr. Holt proposed to his wife to build houses on two of her lots, to which she objected. He urged the building of the houses, and informed her that he was himself to pay for them. She then made no further opposition, though she still did not wish the houses to be built. On the said 8th day of September, 1877, Mr. Holt entered into a written contract with the plaintiff to build two houses for him, which were to be placed on the above land of Mrs. Holt. The plaintiff proceeded according to the contract, furnished the materials for and erected the houses, and in due time filed his lien thereon. He made no agreement respecting the houses with Mrs. Holt. On the contrary, in making the contract and in performing the services and in furnishing the materials he gave the sole personal credit to Mr. Holt. Mr. Holt did not represent that he was the owner of the land on which the houses were to be placed. In making the contract he acted in his individual capacity, and did not act or assume to act as the agent of Mrs. Holt, nor had he in making the same any authority from or right or authority to act or contract for her. The plaintiff relied as security for the payment for his work and materials upon such lien on the land as by law he might have. Prior to the time he had completed the houses he supposed that Mr. Holt was the owner of the land. He made no examination of the records to ascertain in whom the title to the lots was, and until after the houses were finished he did not know that Mrs. Holt was the owner. Mrs. Holt learned that the houses were being built, and that the plaintiff was building them, about the time work thereon was commenced. She then, and at all times, supposed that the work was being done upon the personal credit of her husband, and not upon her credit, or upon the credit of her interest in the land; and she gave no notice to the plaintiff of her disapproval of the work or of the fact that she owned the land, or that her husband had no authority to act for her. On these facts the plaintiff asked the court to decide that the labor and materials furnished by him were furnished by the consent of Mrs. Holt, within the meaning of the statute concerning mechanics' liens. The court did not so decide, but rendered judgment against the plaintiff. He appeals, and assigns as his reason of appeal the refusal of the court to rule and decide according to his request.

The statute concerning mechanics' liens (Gen. St. § 3018) is as follows: "Every building in the construction or repair of which or of any of its appurtenances any person shall have a claim for materials furnished or services rendered exceeding twenty-five dollars in amount, by virtue of an agreement with or by consent of the owner of the land upon which such building is erected, or some person having authority from or rightfully acting for such owner in procuring or furnishing such labor or materials, shall, with the land on which the same may stand, be subject to the payment...