Stone v. Rosenfield
| Decision Date | 31 March 1954 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Parties | STONE v. ROSENFIELD et al. Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut |
Henry J. Goldberg, Hartford, with whom were Seymour A. Rothenberg, Hartford, and, on the brief, Jacob Schwolsky, Hartford, for appellant (plaintiff).
Edward J. Lonergan, Hartford, for appellees (defendant Rosenfield and others).
Before INGLIS, C. J., BALDWIN, O'SULLIVAN and WYNNE, JJ., and DALY, Superior Court Judge.
This action was brought to foreclose a mechanic's lien filed by the plaintiff on property owned by the defendants Joseph A. Rosenfield and Richard Weinfield, hereinafter referred to as the defendants. The trial court found that the lien was void. From its judgment an appeal was taken.
The finding is not subject to correction. The facts may be summarized as follows: The property is located on Wethersfield Avenue in Hartford. It includes a two-family dwelling house and, in the rear, a brick building formerly used as an ice plant. On June 6, 1950, the defendants and Holland Cleansers, Inc., entered into a bond for a deed which provided for a conveyance by the defendants on or before January 2, 1951, with a right in them to declare the bond for a deed null and void in the event of the bankruptcy of Holland Cleansers. Weekly payments as rental were to be credited on the purchase price if and when the title was conveyed. Holland Cleaners did in fact file a petition in bankruptcy March 15, 1951, and the defendants nullified the bond for a deed and so notified the trustee in bankruptcy.
Prior to its bankruptcy, Holland Cleansers had embarked upon work to install, at its own cost, a dry-cleaning plant and shirt laundry in the rear building on the premises. With the approval of the defendants, it employed the plaintiff to do the work. Electric wiring was already in the building for lighting purposes when the plaintiff started his work, but wiring which was not adaptable for use by Holland Cleansers was removed. The plaintiff installed a wiring system to furnish power to run the dry-cleaning and laundry machines being installed and to provide further lighting for the plant. The work included the placing of conduits and panel boards. It was done under the direction of the defendant Weinfield and an officer of Holland Cleansers. Weinfield had assured the plaintiff that his bill would be paid. The work involved breaking through some walls, putting lead shields in at least one hole and placing screws in the shields to support conduits and boxes. The plaintiff did not complete all of the electrical work, having stopped because he had not been paid every week as agreed. The materials furnished and the services rendered were solely for the purpose of Holland Cleansers and had no value for any other business. Practically all of the wiring installed by the plaintiff was removed after Holland Cleansers became bankrupt.
The trial court concluded that the materials were not furnished, and the services were not rendered, for the 'construction, raising, removal or repairs' of the defendants' building and that the plaintiff's lien was therefore void. General Statutes § 7217. In the assignment of errors exception is taken to the conclusions set forth in the three paragraphs of the finding that are conclusive of this appeal. The second assignment of error is concerned with the court's failure to adopt diametrically opposite conclusions, which in substance were that the work was a construction or repair job and thus a lien could attach. The point is argued that the subordinate facts do not support the conclusions. The question is therefore presented whether the installation was of such a nature as to make it a permanent part of the building. The plaintiff's argument is that, in view of the fact that the building was under contract of sale to Holland Cleansers, the intention of the parties was that the electrical wiring should become a permanent fixture.
So far as pertinent, § 7217 of the General Statutes provides: 'If any person shall have a claim for more than ten dollars for materials furnished or services rendered in the construction, raising, removal or repairs of any building or any of its appurtenances * * * such building, with the land on which it stands, shall be subject to the payment of such claim.' The purpose of the statute is to give a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
New England Sav. Bank v. Meadow Lakes Realty Co.
...under the guise of a liberal construction. Camputaro v. Stuart Hardwood Corporation, supra, at 551, 429 A.2d 796; Stone v. Rosenfield, 141 Conn. 188, 191, 104 A.2d 545 (1954). Finally, the provisions of our statute differ sufficiently from the mechanic's lien legislation of other states so ......
-
General Elec. Supply Co. v. Southern New England Telephone Co.
... ... Although in Stone v. Moomjian, 92 Conn. 476, 483-85, 103 A. 635 (1918), this court spoke of an owner's "duty ... to retain ... moneys due the original contractor," the ... Rosenfield, 141 Conn. 188, 191-92, 104 A.2d 545 (1954); there was sufficient evidence of consent "by virtue of an agreement with or by the consent of the owner" ... ...
-
First Constitution Bank v. Harbor Village Ltd. Partnership
...does not, however, permit departure from reasonable compliance with the specific provisions of the statute. Stone v. Rosenfield, [141 Conn. 188, 191, 104 A.2d 545 (1954) ]; City Lumber Co. v. Borsuk, [131 Conn. 640, 645, 41 A.2d 775 (1945) ]. (Citations omitted.) Camputaro v. Stuart Hardwoo......
-
The Fcm Group Inc. v. Miller
...done, in the construction, raising, removal or repairs of a building, there can be no lien.” (Citations omitted.) Stone v. Rosenfield, 141 Conn. 188, 191–92, 104 A.2d 545 (1954); see also Intercity Development, LLC v. Andrade, 286 Conn. 177, 184, 942 A.2d 1028 (2008) (“[p]rior precedent fro......