Smith v. Norris
Decision Date | 06 March 1876 |
Parties | James F. Smith v. Benjamin P. Norris |
Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
Argued November 12, 1875. [Syllabus Material] [Syllabus Material]
Suffolk. Petition by James F. Smith and John H. Le Cain to enforce a mechanic's lien under the Gen. Sts. c. 150, for work done upon a block of five houses on Dennis Street in Boston.
The certificate, filed by the petitioners in the office of the city clerk on March 7, 1873, set forth that the petitioners had a claim against William Eadie and Theodore G. Brown, late copartners under the firm name of Eadie & Brown amounting to $ 400, according to an account annexed and made part of the certificate. The first item of this account, under date of February 6, 1873, was: "For 247 3/4 days' labor on five houses on Dennis Street, in Boston, $ 1050." The other items were various credits, made in 1872, amounting to $ 650, leaving a balance of $ 400. The certificate then set forth that the claim was made for and on account of labor performed and furnished in the erection of five brick houses on land owned by Benjamin P. Norris, and situate on Dennis Street in Boston, and described their situation on the street; that the houses constituted one block; that the labor was performed and furnished in and upon said houses by virtue of a contract entered into on September 24, 1872, between the petitioners of the one part and Eadie & Brown of the other part, a copy of the contract being annexed and made part of the certificate;. [*] that the petitioners had performed and furnished labor under the contract upon said houses to the value of $ 1050, and had received the sum of $ 650, leaving a balance due of $ 400; that the completion of the work was stopped without any fault on the petitioners' part; and that they ceased laboring upon said houses on February 6, 1873. The petition also set forth a claim for extra work done on said houses in accordance with directions given from time to time by Eadie & Brown, amounting to $ 65, after deducting all just credits; and claimed a lien upon said houses and the land under them.
The case was sent to an auditor, who found that the respondent was the owner of the land described in the petition; that on August 20, 1872, he and Eadie & Brown made and signed the following contract under seal:
"Agreement of sale made and concluded this twentieth day of August, A. D. 1872, by and between Benjamin P. Norris, of Boston, in the county of Suffolk, of the first part, and William Eadie and Theodore G. Brown, both of said Boston, of the second part, witnesseth, that the said Norris agrees to sell and convey, and said Eadie & Brown agree to purchase, a certain parcel of land situated on the northwesterly side of Dennis Street in said Boston." Then followed a description of the land.
Indorsed upon this contract was an assignment by the assignee in bankruptcy of Eadie & Brown, dated February 18, 1873, of all their rights in the contract to Isaac G. Caswell; and an agreement, dated February 21, 1873, signed by Norris, whereby he agreed to be bound, by all the covenants contained in the contract, to Caswell and one Weeks, as fully and completely as though the contract had been originally executed by them, and extending the contract to June 20, 1873.
The auditor further found that on September 24, 1872, Eadie & Brown, with the knowledge of the respondent, entered into the contract with the petitioners, as alleged in their petition; that the petitioners, with the knowledge and consent of the respondent, proceeded to build the houses as required by the contract; that most of the carpenter's work necessary to be done, before the houses were plastered, was done before December 12, 1872, on which day Eadie & Brown filed a petition in bankruptcy; that the petitioners were prevented from completing their contract with Eadie & Brown, by the failure of the latter to furnish the materials, as required by the contract; that some work was done by the petitioners after December 12, 1872, on one only of the houses, which work was done in good faith, with the expectation that they were to go forward and finish the work under the contract; that the labor on the houses ceased on ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Allen Estate Association v. Fred Boeke & Son
...198 Ill. 62; Mistrell v. Baldwin, 129 N.Y.S. 670; National Wall Paper Co. v. Sire, 163 N.Y. 122; Hall v. Parker, 94 Pa. St. 109; Smith v. Norris, 120 Mass. 58; Berket Harper, 79 N.Y. 273. (3) The lien is given by law and cannot be considered waived unless the intention to waive is clearly m......
-
Winslow Brothers Company v. McCully Stone Mason Company
...98; Hill v. Gill, 40 Minn. 441; Hacker v. Badow, 63 N.Y. 476; Berket v. Harper, 79 N.Y. 273; Hildon v. Merrill, 106 Mass. 528; Smith v. Norris, 120 Mass. 58; Co. v. Jones, 187 Ill. 210; Paper Co. v. Lire, 163 N.Y. 129. What is implied in a statute or contract is as much a part of it as what......
-
Hart v. Reid
...the houses; and the labor of the workmen thus employed was performed by his consent within the intendment of the statute.’ In Smith v. Norris, 120 Mass. 58, a substantially similar contract was before the court and the same ruling made. In Henderson v. Connelly, 123 Ill. 98, 14 N. E. 1,5 Am......
-
Millsap v. Ball
... ... Lawton, 3 Id., 452; Rollin v. Cross, 45 N.Y ... 768; Hackett v. Badeau, 63 N.Y. 476; 2 Jones, Liens, ... sec. 1254, and citations; Smith v. Norris, 120 Mass ... 58; Davis v. Humphrey, 112 Id., 309; Peabody v ... East'n Soc., 5 Allen [Mass.], 540; Hayes v ... Fessenden, 106 Mass ... ...