Perreault v. Shaw
| Decision Date | 30 July 1897 |
| Citation | 38 A. 724,69 N.H. 180 |
| Parties | PERREAULT v. SHAW et al. |
| Court | New Hampshire Supreme Court |
Action of assumpsit by Mederic Perreault against Shaw & Whittemore. Heard on an agreed statement of facts. Case discharged.
The defendants owned and operated a brickyard in Pembroke from April 29 to August 29, 1895. August 28, 1895, they were decreed insolvent. The plaintiff, under a contract with the defendants, boarded their workmen to the amount of $1,467.26, for which amount he claims a lien upon the brick made that season, and brings this action to enforce such lien.
D. B. Donovan, for plaintiff.
A. F. Burbank and Albin, Martin & Howe, for defendants.
BLODGETT, J. "If a person shall, by himself or others, perform labor or furnish materials to the amount of fifteen dollars or more for making brick, by virtue of a contract with the owner thereof, he shall have a lien upon the kiln containing such brick for such labor or materials." Pub. St. c. 141, § 11. The legislative purpose in the enactment of this statute evidently was to protect the laborer who performs manual work in making the brick, and the person who furnishes materials which are used therefor; and such, also, is the reasonable import of the language employed, in its common and ordinary signification. Assuming the correctness of this interpretation, the plaintiff fails to make a case which entitles him to the remedial advantages of the statute. At most, the board furnished by him contributed only in an indirect manner to the making of the brick. He neither performed labor nor furnished materials within the statutory coutemplation, which limits the lieu to such labor performed and materials furnished as enter into, and become a part of, the brick. See Bradford v. Lumber Co., 80 Wis. 50, 48 N. W. 1105; Williams v. Coal Co., 25 Or. 426, 431, 432, 36 Pac. 159; McCormick v. Water Co., 40 Cal. 185; Dudley v. Railway Co., 65 Mich. 655, 32 N. W. 884; Central Trust Co. v. Texas & St. L. Ry. Co., 27 Fed. 178; Gordon Hardware Co. v. San Francisco & S. R. Co. (Cal.) 22 Pac. 406. To give to the statute the elastic power claimed for it by the plaintiff would require an unnatural and strained construction, which, if carried to its logical conclusion, would extend the lien indefinitely to every one who, by virtue of a contract with the owner, contributes, however remotely, to the making of brick, by any kind of services rendered or supplies furnished to the workmen which aid them in any degree...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Franzen v. Southern Surety Co.
... ... v. Fidelity Co. 169 Ill.App. 1; Van ... Havns Co. v. Day, 148 S.W. 1129; Armour & Co. v ... Western Co. 78 P. 1106; Perrault v. Shaw, 38 A ... 724; Electric Co. v. Springfield Co., 86 N.E. 248 ... Money loaned is not a claim; Cadenasso v. Antonelle, supra; ... Hardaway v ... ...
-
Wiss v. Royal Indemnity Company
...& W. R. Co. v. Ritz, 1 P. 27; United States, use of Sica, v. Kimpland, 93 F. 403; Armour & Co. v. Western Constr. Co., 78 P. 1106; Perrault v. Show, 38 A. 724; R. Hass Electric & Mfg. Co. v. Springfield Amusement Park Co., 86 N.E. Van Horn Trading Co. v. Day, 148 S.W. 1129. Barker Davis for......
-
Anderson v. Great Northern Ry. Co.
... ... U.S. 128, 12 S.Ct. 181, 35 L.Ed. 961; Jones v. Great ... Southern Fireproof Hotel Co., 86 F. 370, 30 C. C. A ... 108; Perrault v. Shaw, 69 N.H. 180, 76 Am. St. 160, ... 38 A. 724; Mallory v. La Crosse Abattoir Co., 80 Wis. 170, 49 ... N.W. 1071.) ... The ... entire ... ...
-
Wiss v. Royal Indeminty Co.
...survives its performance, and can be used upon other contracts. See, also, United States to Use of Seca v. Kempland, 93 F. 403; Perrault v. Shaw, 38 A. 724, 69 N. II. 180, 76 Am. St. Rep. 160; Wells v. Mehl, 25 Kan. 205; U. S. Rubber Co. v. Co., 149 P. 706, 86 Wash. 180, L. R. A. 1915F, 951......