Lord v. Collins
| Decision Date | 28 October 1884 |
| Parties | FRANK LORD, petitioner, v. CHARLES F. COLLINS. |
| Court | Maine Supreme Court |
ON REPORT of the presiding justice.
The case and material facts are fully stated in the opinion.
Thomas H. B. Pierce, for the petitioner.
There was no appearance for the respondent.
This is a petition to enforce a lien for feeding and sheltering three colts from November 22, 1882, to April 18, 1883. The case discloses the following facts.
This petitioner, on the 16th day of October, 1880, verbally agreed with the respondent to feed and shelter three colts during the winter season then following for the specified sum of sixty dollars; the price was not paid, and the colts were not taken away, but remained in the petitioner's possession and on the 22d day of November, 1882, he filed a petition returnable at the December term of this court for the county of Somerset, in which he claimed a lien for feeding, sheltering and pasturing the said colts from the time they came into his possession to the date of the said petition, amounting to two hundred twenty-eight dollars and forty cents, with a credit of thirty dollars leaving a balance of one hundred ninety-eight dollars and forty cents; notice thereon was duly ordered, and at the March term, 1883, the case was defaulted, judgment entered and a decree for the lien " as prayed for, and for the sale of said colts by the sheriff of this county or either of his deputies for the payment thereof, and for costs." Execution issued April 12, 1883, and the officer in pursuance of the same, seized the colts on the 21st day of April, and thereafterwards sold the same in accordance with the provisions of the statute, receiving therefrom a surplus of one hundred sixteen dollars and thirty cents, above the amount necessary to satisfy the claim of the petitioner and the costs accruing thereon.
For the keeping and sheltering of said colts for twenty-one weeks, from the time of filing his first petition to the 18th day of April, three days prior to the time they were taken by the officer, amounting to ninety-five dollars, this second petition is brought substantially alleging the foregoing facts, and " for which sum as well as for his costs herein he claims a lien upon said animals by virtue of the provisions of chapter 125 of the laws of 1873, in addition to the judgment of lien in his behalf against said animals granted him as hereinbefore set forth."
The question is whether the statute authorizes a second petition, judgment, and order of court to enforce a lien upon the same animals in this form.
We think not. Liens are in derogation of the common law, and the court is not authorized to extend the law beyond the objects specifically provided for, or enforce a remedy provided by statute except in accordance with the terms thereof.
The petitioner claims the lien by virtue of the statute, public laws of 1872, c. 27, amended by the laws of 1873, c. 125, under which this process is brought to enforce it.
While we admit the doctrine that the remedy being granted by statute may be liberally construed, we must also hold that the remedy as one additional to the common law, if intended by the legislature, should appear by express declaration or necessary implication. The proceedings are strictly in rem, and we are not called upon to determine the rights of these parties in any other process, or proceeding in personam.
The statute in force at the time of filing these petitions ran thus: " Whoever pastures, feeds or shelters animals by virtue of a contract with or by consent of the owner, has a lien thereon for the amount due for such pasturing, feeding or sheltering, to secure payment thereof with costs, to be enforced in the same manner as liens on goods and personal baggage by inn-holders or keepers of boarding-houses."
The remedy provided for inn-holders and keepers of boarding-houses, was, at that time, by petition to the court to enforce a sale of the goods and baggage of delinquent guests, as stated in R. S., 1871, c. 91, § 39, and sections following. Hence we are to look to those provisions of the statute for the measure and extent of any remedy sought by this petition. It will be noticed that the statute relating to the remedy of a party who pastures, feeds or shelters animals provides for a lien " thereon; " that by § 40, of the statutes relating to the remedy of inn-holders and keepers of boarding-houses, the petition is to set forth a " description of the article poss...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gould v. Hill
... ... Y.), 231; [43 Idaho 96] Ingalls v. Vance, 61 Vt ... 582, 18 A. 452; Lewis v. Tyler, 23 Cal. 364; ... Conklin v. Carver, 19 Ind. 226; Lord v ... Collins, 76 Me. 443; McKee Livestock Co. v ... Menzel, 70 Colo. 308, 201 P. 52; Bailey v ... O'Fallon, 30 Colo. 418, 70 P. 755; ... ...
-
El Paso Cattle Loan Co. of El Paso v. Hunt
...a lien to agistors. These statutes, being in derogation of the common law, are to be strictly construed. 3 C. J., “Animals,” § 59; Lord v. Collins, 76 Me. 443; Ingalls v. Vance, 61 Vt. 582, 18 Atl. 452; Thomas v. Mann, 22 Wyo. 99, 135 Pac. 1088. [1] It is to be noted that our statute names ......
-
Collins v. Blake
...on which the sale was made, the defendant's return thereon as deputy-sheriff, and all other papers in the proceedings in said case of Lord v. Collins, above referred to, form part of this case; that the plaintiff in this suit was the owner of said colts at the time they were taken by the de......
-
Lord v. Collins
...him with the authority to create a lien on the animals for their keeping, that lien cannot subsist upon the funds in question. Lord v. Collins, 76 Me. 443. It is impossible to make the court itself a party by it being an official depository of the fund. The statute relied on as furnishing a......