Stratton v. Shoenbar

• Decision Date: 29 June 1887
• Citation: Stratton v. Shoenbar, 10 A. 446 (Me. 1887)
• Parties: STRATTON v. SHOENBAR.
• Court: Maine Supreme Court

10 A. 446

STRATTON

v. SHOENBAR.¹

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine.

June 29, 1887.

On exceptions by plaintiff from supreme judicial court, Hancock county.

Action to enforce a laborer's lien upon the St. John Hotel in Sullivan. The provision of the Revised Statutes (Rev. St. c. 91, § 32) relating to the form of such claim has been quoted in Billings v. Martin, ante, 445. The opinion states the facts.

B. T. Soule, for plaintiffs. Wiswell & King, for defendants.

PER CURIAM. This was an action to enforce an alleged lien for labor furnished by the plaintiff upon the St. John Hotel in Sullivan, without any contract with, though by the consent of, the owner. Within the 30 days after the labor was so furnished, the plaintiff made in his own handwriting the following bill: "SULLIVAN, August 12, 1884.

"The St. John Hotel, John Shoenbar, Proprietor, to Warren Stratton, Dr., from June to Date.

To 35 1/4 days painting at $2.50,

$88 12

"2 books G. leaf,

100

"colors,

50

$89 62"

—This bill he made oath to, and filed in the town clerk's office in Sullivan within said 30 days.

It was contended by the plaintiff that the name "Warren Stratton" in the above bill being in his handwriting, was subscribing the statement as required by Rev. St. c. 91, § 32. We think not. The statute intends the statement to be attested or certified by the lien claimant, and to that end requires him to "subscribe" it. There must be a writing of his signature, for the purpose of attesting the correctness of the statement. That evidently was not done in this case. Exceptions overruled.

1 Reported by Leslie C. Cornish, Esq., of the Augusta bar.