Thayer v. Padelford
| Decision Date | 11 March 1898 |
| Citation | 69 N.H. 301,41 A. 447 |
| Parties | THAYER v. PADELFORD. |
| Court | New Hampshire Supreme Court |
Case reserved from Coos county court.
Assumpsit by H. A Thayer against Mary E. Padelford. The writ contained a command to attach the hcuse and the lot of land on which it stands, particularly describing the lot, in order to secure the plaintiff's lien for the debt set forth in the declaration. The plaintiff resides in this county, and the defendant in Rhode Island. The question whether the action should have been brought In Grafton county was reserved. Case discharged.
Perrin T. Kellogg, for plaintiff.
Bingham, Mitchell & Batchellor, for defendant.
This action (assumpsit) being transitory, was properly brought in this county, in which one of the parties was an Inhabitant, unless the fact that real estate situated in Grafton county was attached therein to preserve a mechanic's lien affects the question of Jurisdiction. Pub. St. c. 216, § 1. A person who performs labor or furnishes materials to the amount of $15 or more in erecting a building, by virtue of a contract with the owner, has a lien upon the building and land on which it stands for 90 days after the labor is performed or materials furnished, which takes precedence of prior claims except taxes, and may be secured by an attachment of the property, the writ and return distinctly expressing the purpose. Id. c. 141, §§ 10,16,17. The attachment in such a case differs from a common attachment only in the fact that it is made in compliance with a special command contained in the writ, and secures or continues in force a lien already in existence by virtue of the statute. If the plaintiff recovers Judgment, he must resort to a levy to appropriate the property to the payment of the judgment the same as when a common attachment is made. The question of the validity of the lien is not ordinarily considered in deciding the action. The defendaut may have no Interest in the question. Unless he has conveyed, the property attached, or has otherwise made himself liable to a third person in case a lien upon it exists, it is immaterial to him whether the property is appropriated by virtue of a common attachment or a lien attachment. In either event it will pay the judgment against him to the extent of its value. Persons asserting rights adverse to the lien, as, for example, grantees of the property or attaching creditors, are not parties to the action, unless they have been allowed to become such from...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Goudie v. Am. Moore Peg Co.
...receiver the question of priority between the three lienholders is of no importance. Hodgdon v. Darling, 61 N. H. 582; Thayer v. Padelford, 69 N. H. 301, 41 Atl. 447. If the administration of his trust requires the redemption from one attachment, he must redeem from all. The lienholders can......
- Davis v. Boston & M. R. R.
- Palmer v. Bass
-
Holden Eng'g & Surveying, Inc. v. Law Offices of Raymond P. D'Amante, P.A.
...any of the statutory liens that arise automatically under the provisions of RSA 447:1 –:5 and:7 (1991). See Thayer v. Padelford, 69 N.H. 301, 302, 41 A. 447, 447 (1897). It provides that "[a]ny such lien may be secured by attachment of the property upon which it exists at any time while the......