Shaughnessy v. Isenberg

• Decision Date: 27 November 1912
• Citation: 99 N.E. 975,213 Mass. 159
• Parties: SHAUGHNESSY v. ISENBERG et al.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

213 Mass. 159

99 N.E. 975

SHAUGHNESSY v. ISENBERG et al.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Worcester.

November 27, 1912

COUNSEL

John H. Reid, of Worcester, for appellant.

Maurice L. Katz, of Worcester, for appellees.

OPINION

RUGG C.J.

This is a petition to enforce a mechanic's lien for the balance due upon an entire contract made by the petitioner with the owner of the land for furnishing labor and materials. The case was submitted upon an agreed statement of facts, in substance as follows: The contract was dated on August 7 1909. Subsequently certain mortgages were given by the owner through the foreclosure of which the defendant, Goldman, traced his title, which he acquired November 12, 1910. Neither he nor any of the mortgagees nor the purchaser at the mortgagees' sales had any knowledge of the plaintiff's contract, although it was not completed at the time of the foreclosure of the mortgages. Between March 15 and March 22, 1911, several days' labor was performed and a small amount of material was furnished by the plaintiff, and the work required by the contract was completed. This work was done without the knowledge of the mortgagees or of the purchaser at the foreclosure sale or of the defendant Goldman, and, as far as the latter knew, the plumbing (to which the contract related) was completed when he took his title. The plaintiff did all the work necessary to finish his contract, after Goldman became owner, in good faith for the purpose of finishing his contract, and he had no knowledge of any change in title until just before filing his certificate. The superior court ordered the petition dismissed upon these facts, on the ground that 'the petitioner unreasonbly delayed the complete performance of his contract without any explanation or excuse.' The petitioner's appeal brings under review the correctness of this ruling.

It is to be noted that there is nothing in the agreed facts to show the date when the last labor was performed by the petitioner prior to March 15, 1911. There is no stipulation that inferences of fact may be drawn by the court. Hence the only question presented is whether upon the facts stated the plaintiff is entitled to maintain his petition. The presumptions in favor of a general finding by the court where rational deductions may be drawn from the evidence is absent. Cunningham v. Conn. Fire Ins. Co., 200 Mass. 333, 86 N.E. 787.

A mechanic's lien relates back to the time of the contract and takes precedence over subsequent mortgages and conveyances Dunklee v. Crane, 103 Mass. 470. The lien having once attached continues until everything required by the contract has been done, unless the contract is terminated in some way before it is fully performed. Gale v. Blaikie, 126 Mass. 274. Dodge v. Hall, 168 Mass. 435, 441, 47 N.E. 110. The essential factors under the statute for determining the existence of a lien for the performance of a contract for materials and labor are whether the items, which are relied upon to keep the lien alive, are furnished in fulfillment of the contract and in good faith. Even though the last work may be trifling in amount or considerably removed in time from the...