Prindiville v. Boston & Worcester Street Railway Co.
| Decision Date | 28 February 1917 |
| Parties | JOHN J. PRINDIVILLE v. BOSTON AND WORCESTER STREET RAILWAY COMPANY. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
January 18, 1917.
Present: RUGG, C.
J., LORING, BRALEY DE COURCY, & CROSBY, JJ.
Mechanic's Lien, On building of street railway corporation. Public Service Corporations.
Assuming, without deciding it, that the provisions of R.L.c. 197 should be construed as impliedly exempting a street railway company as a public service corporation from the establishment of mechanics' liens upon its property, yet the exemption should be restricted to such of its property as is essential to the performance of the corporation's public duties.
Where a car barn was constructed by a street railway corporation on land purchased for the purpose half a mile distant from the site of a former car barn of the company that had been destroyed by fire, and where, although the creation of such a new building was reasonable and economical, the corporation could have carried on its business and have maintained its regular schedules by using its other existing car barns or could have erected a new barn on the site of the one destroyed, it cannot be said as matter of law that an auditor was not warranted in finding that the car barn was not essential to the operation of the street railway, and on such finding a mechanic's lien can be established upon the building.
PETITION, filed on July 28, 1908, under R.L.c. 197, to establish a mechanic's lien upon a new brick car barn erected upon land of the defendant at Framingham.
In the Superior Court the case was referred to an auditor, who filed a report in which he found that the petitioner was entitled to establish his lien in the sum of $10,029.44, representing the value of labor performed and furnished, as distinguished from the value of materials furnished, with interest from the date of the filing of the petition.
Later the case was heard by Morton, J., on the petitioner's motion for entry of judgment according to the auditor's report. No issues of fact were raised, and the respondent agreed that the petition could be maintained unless as a matter of law the car barn was not subject to a mechanic's lien. Upon motion of the petitioner and against the objection of the respondent, the judge found in favor of the petitioner and ruled that the car barn was subject to a mechanic's lien and that the lien should be established.
By agreement of the parties, the judge reported the case for determination by this court upon the facts set forth in the report. If, in the opinion of the court, the petitioner was entitled to maintain his petition, a lien was to be established in his favor in the sum of $10,029.44 with interest at six per cent per annum from July 28, 1908; and if, upon the facts reported, the petitioner was not entitled to maintain his petition, the petition was to be dismissed.
J. F. Bacon, for the respondent.
C. F. Choate, Jr. (T.
H. Sullivan with him,) for the petitioner.
DE COURCY, J. This is a petition brought under R.L.c. 197, by a subcontractor to establish a mechanic's lien for labor furnished in the erection of a car house upon the respondent's land at Framingham. The case came before the Superior Court for hearing on the petitioner's motion for entry of judgment according to the auditor's report. No issues of fact were raised or requested; but the respondent agreed that the petition could be maintained unless as a matter of law the car house was not subject to a mechanic's lien. The judge found in favor of the petitioner, ruled that the car house was subject to a mechanic's lien and that the lien should be established and reported the case for the consideration of the full court.
By the great weight of authority a mechanic's lien does not attach to public property unless the statute creating the lien expressly so provides. The broad language of the general lien act is construed as impliedly exempting property needed for the proper administration of government from seizure by creditors, on the ground of public policy or because the lien could not be enforced by the methods provided. Lessard v Revere, 171 Mass. 294. Staples v. Somerville, 176 Mass. 237 . Young v. Falmouth, 183 Mass. 80. Ann. Cas. 1914 C 102 note. See now St. 1915, c....
To continue reading
Request your trial