Mitchell v. Packard
| Decision Date | 22 May 1897 |
| Citation | 168 Mass. 467,47 N.E. 113 |
| Parties | MITCHELL v. PACKARD. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
Rodney Lund and C.F.A. Smith, for petitioner.
W.M McInness and J.J. Higgins, for respondent.
The questions presented by this case are: First, whether one who is an architect, and has drawn plans and prepared specifications for the construction of five houses under a contract to draw the plans and specifications and supervise the construction of the houses, and who has supervised the construction of one of the houses until it was about half completed, and supervised the work of putting in the foundations of two of the others, involving an expenditure of about $40 upon one and about $15 upon the other, can have a lien, under Pub.St. c. 191, for the whole amount due him and, secondly, if he cannot, whether he can have a lien for the value of his services in supervising the work upon the buildings, considered apart from the preparation of the plans and specifications. The statutes of the different states in regard to mechanics' liens differ materially in their provisions, and the cases show a considerable conflict of authority upon the questions before us. But we are of opinion that under statutes similar to ours the weight of judicial opinion is in favor of holding that the services of an architect in preparing plans and specifications for a building are not the kind of labor intended to be protected by the statute, and, on the other hand, that services upon a building, in supervising the work of construction, enter directly into the construction, so as fairly to be called "labor performed or furnished *** and actually used in the erection of a building," within the meaning of these words in section 1 of the statute above cited. It is also generally held that the fact that one who does such work is an architect does not prevent him from recovering for this kind of service, which is often performed by an intelligent mechanic. This is the doctrine of the highest court in Pennsylvania where the provisions of the statute are similar to ours. Price v. Kirk, 90 Pa.St. 47; Rush v. Able, Id. 153; Bank v. Gries, 35 Pa.St. 423. Under a like statute in Missouri, it was held in Raeder v. Bensberg, 6 Mo.App. 445, that the services of an architect "in drawing plans and specifications, and giving directions to the builder under whose special superintendence the house is being erected, cannot be called, in any proper sense of the words, work or labor upon the building." A similar decision was made in Foushee v. Grigsby, 12 Bush, 76. Ames v. Dyer, 41 Me. 397, was a case arising under a statute giving a lien for labor performed or materials furnished "for or on account of any vessel building or standing on stocks," etc., and the attempt was to establish a lien for a mold constructed and used to form the timbers for a ship. The court said that "the plan of a house, the model of a ship, the molds by which its timbers are to be hewed, may be necessary, even indispensable, but they do not enter into any structure, so as to be a part of its materials, and cannot be regarded as within the provisions of the statute." The liens with which we are dealing are commonly called "mechanics' liens" in the statutes...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rentals v. Drilling
...Assocs., Inc. v. New England Tel. & Tel. Co., 399 Mass. 541, 542–543, 505 N.E.2d 883 (1987), citing Mitchell v. Packard, 168 Mass. 467, 469, 47 N.E. 113 (1897). “At the same time, the statute contains filing and notice requirements to protect the owner and others with an interest in the pro......
-
Continental & Commercial Trust & Savings Bank v. North Platte Valley Irr. Co.
... ... may for superintendence, and where services in these two ... capacities cannot be distinguished, the lien is lost ... Mitchell v. Packard, 168 Mass. 465, 47 N.E. 113, 60 ... Am.St.Rep. 404. In Iowa, Wisconsin, and Nebraska the lien is ... upheld for plans alone without ... ...
-
Henry & Coatsworth Company v. Halter
...for making plans, specifications, and details, because the value of the claimants' services under that item is not shown. (Mitchell v. Packard, 47 N.E. 113 [Mass.].) An architect is not entitled to a mechanic's lien for making plans, specifications, details, and perspectives, unless these i......
-
JJ Henry Co. v. United States
...Bank & Trust Co. v. Lainhart, 84 Fla. 662, 95 So. 122 (1922); Libbey v. Tidden, 192 Mass. 175, 78 N.E. 313 (1906); Mitchell v. Packard, 168 Mass. 467, 47 N.E. 113 (1897); Stephens v. Hicks, supra). Where, however, the architect also superintends the project, he is frequently permitted a lie......