Marchetti v. Sleeper
| Citation | 100 Conn. 339,123 A. 845 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Decision Date | 01 March 1924 |
| Parties | MARCHETTI ET AL. v. SLEEPER ET AL. |
Appeal from Superior Court, Hartford County; Frank D. Haines, Judge.
Action by Joseph E. Marchetti and others against George E. Sleeper and others on bond given to release a mechanic's lien. Judgment for plaintiffs, and defendants appeal. No error.
The complaint is in the form usual in suits on bonds substituted for mechanics' liens, and avers in general terms that the plaintiffs rendered services and furnished materials in the construction of a building belonging to the defendants. After the answer and reply were filed, it appeared for the first time that the plaintiffs' lien was admittedly based solely on services rendered by the plaintiffs as architects in the preparation of plans of specifications and in supervising the construction of the building.
When the cause came on for trial on the merits, the parties at the suggestion of the trial court agreed that the question whether the plaintiffs were entitled to claim a mechanic's lien for services of that character should first be raised and disposed of as an issue of law, before the trial on the merits, and it was so raised and disposed of by a demurrer to the complaint, which was overruled. The trial then proceeded before the same judge and resulted in a judgment for the plaintiff for an amount substantially less than that named in the certificate of lien. Defendants appeal on the ground that the court erred in overruling the demurrer, and that the lien, if any, was invalid either because the certificate did not correctly state the amount due or because it included a claim for breach of contract.
Francis W. Cole and Reuben Taylor, both of Hartford, for appellants.
John J. McKone, of Hartford, for appellees.
BEACH J. (after stating the facts as above).
The demurrer might better have been addressed to the special defense raised by the answer than to the complaint, for the complaint contains no averment as to character of the plaintiffs' services, and the defense that an architect's services are not lienable could not properly be raised in that way. But since that issue of law is necessarily determined by the judgment, and nobody makes any objection to the form in which it is presented by the appeal we will decide the point.
Whether an architect's claim for services rendered in the preparation of plans and specifications, and in supervising construction, subjects land and building to lien, depends wholly on the construction of our statute, section 5217, the relevant words of which are:
" If any person shall have a claim * * * for materials furnished or services rendered in the construction, raising * * * or repairs of any building, * * * such claim shall be a lien on such land, building and appurtenances."
The question is a new one in this court, though it was referred to and left undecided in Weinstein v. Montowese Brick Co., 91 Conn. 165, 169, 99 A. 488; and we are not advised that it has ever been adjudged in the superior court.
Turning first to the history or our statute, it appears that in this state mechanics' liens have never been limited to persons performing manual labor on the building. The original act of 1836 gave a lien for sums in excess of $200 due to " the contractor or contractors for such building or repairs." In 1849 the lien was extended in favor of " any person" having " a claim for materials furnished or services rendered" exceeding the sum of $25. In 1895 the limit was reduced to $10, and the statute has since remained substantially unchanged in any respect material to the point in question.
Literally the plaintiffs' claim is lienable under the statute. They are persons having a claim for services rendered in the construction or raising of the building. The plans and specifications practically construct the building up to the point where it can be apprehended by others. Without them or their equivalent the building could not be constructed at all: The contractor would have no basis for his bid, the materialmen would not know what materials to furnish, and the workmen would not know what manual labor to perform.
Now, if the work were started without any plans and specifications and some one were hired to furnish all necessary...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Thompson and Peck, Inc. v. Division Drywall, Inc.
... ... on count two disposed of all of the plaintiff's claims against the owner and the surety. See Practice Book § 4002B ... 3 In Marchetti v. Sleeper, 100 Conn. 339, 342, 123 A. 845 (1924), this court held that an architect's plans and specifications constituted lienable services ... ...
-
Camputaro v. Stuart Hardwood Corp.
...the appurtenance) to be constructed, raised, removed or repaired. The strongest precedent for the plaintiff is Marchetti v. Sleeper, 100 Conn. 339, 342, 123 A. 845, 846 (1924), which held that an architect's plans and specifications constitute lienable services rendered in the construction ......
-
JJ Henry Co. v. United States
...architects who only furnish plans are excluded from the lien statute definition of "labor". (Lien permitted: e. g., Marchetti v. Sleeper, 100 Conn. 339, 123 A. 845 (1924). No lien permitted: Palm Beach Bank & Trust Co. v. Lainhart, 84 Fla. 662, 95 So. 122 (1922); Libbey v. Tidden, 192 Mass.......
-
Gaastra v. Bishop's Lodge Co.
...Wis. 92, 82 N. W. 717, 81 Am. St. Rep. 824; Hornlein v. Bohlig, 37 Cal. App. 646, 174 P. 697. See, also, the cases of Marchetti v. Sleeper, 100 Conn. 339, 123 A. 845, and Read v. Whitney, 45 Ont. L. R. 377, where there were both plans and supervision, yet in which the courts indicate the li......