Thompson Manuf'g Co. v. Smith
| Decision Date | 17 March 1893 |
| Citation | 29 A. 405,67 N.H. 409 |
| Parties | THOMPSON MANUF'G CO. v. SMITH et al. |
| Court | New Hampshire Supreme Court |
Case reserved from Coos county.
Action by the Thompson Manufacturing Company against J. T. Smith and one Fellows to enforce a lien on a steam engine. Judgment for defendant Fellows.
The lien is contested by Fellows, who bought the engine after the repairs were made, and is admitted to contest it in this action by consent of the parties. Facts agreed: Before 1890 the defendant put the engine into his sawmill, situated on leased land at a place called Frankenstein, in Hart's Location, and used it in the manufacture of lumber. In January, 1890, the sawmill was burned. May 3, 1890, while the engine was standing on its original foundation, the plaintiff took from it the parts to be repaired, brought them to its shops in Lancaster, where the repairs were made, and some time in June carried them back to Frankenstein station, near the place where the mill was burned. In the meanwhile the boiler and other parts of the engine not taken to Lancaster were moved to a place nearer the station, but were still on the leased land. At the plaintiff's request they were then moved to a point still nearer the station, on land belonging to the railroad, where, July 8, 1890, the plaintiff put the engine together, annexing the parts which had been repaired, and completed the repairs. July 10th the defendant sold the engine to Fellows. July 17th they examined the engine, and Fellows took away several small parts thereof, such as gauge cocks, etc., which were likely to be lost or stolen, for the sole purpose of preserving them.
Ossian Ray and Ladd & Fletcher, for plaintiffs. F. B. Osgood, for defendant.
CARPENTER, J. "Any person who by himself or others shall perform labor or furnish materials to the amount of fifteen dollars or more, for erecting, altering, or repairing a house or other building or appurtenances, by virtue of a contract with the owner thereof, shall have a lien thereon and on any right of the owner to the lot of land on which said house, building, or appurtenances stand." Gen. Laws, c. 139, § 11. The burden rests upon the plaintiffs to prove the lien which they assert. The engine was not a "building," within the meaning of the statute, and it does not appear to have been a part or an appurtenance of a building, when the repairs were made. It was portable. It might be placed in a building, and yet be neither a part nor an appurtenance of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bowles v. Ammon
...equipment may be transported by the licensee". Wentworth v. L. & L. Dining Co., 116 Conn. 364, 165 A. 203; Thompson Mfg. Co. v. Smith, 67 N.H. 409, 29 A. 405, 406, 68 Am.St.Rep. 679; and Goff v. Pope, 83 N.C. 123, Stressing the classification of gasoline engines as either "portable" or "sta......
-
S. Clark v. Shannon & Mott Co.
... ... instructions of the court. 2 Mechem, Sales, section 967; ... Thompson Manufacturing Co. v. Smith, 67 N.H. 409 (29 ... A. 405); Merricks v. Davis, 65 Ill. 319; Tennent ... ...
-
Clark v. Shannon & Mott Co.
...and therefore a completed sale, was for the jury, under proper instructions of the court. 2 Mechem, Sales, § 967; Manufacturing Co. v. Smith, 67 N. H. 409, 29 Atl. 505;Merricks v. Davis, 65 Ill. 322;Shoe Co. v. Rudy, 53 Mo. App. 196;Sharpless v. Derr, 62 Mo. App. 359;White v. Pease (Utah) 4......
-
Reeves v. York Engineering & Supply Co.
... ... March 25, 1918 ... [249 F. 514] ... Cecil ... H. Smith, of Sherman, Tex. (J. D. Williamson, of Waco, Tex., ... J. A. L. Wolfe and Head, Dillard, Smith, axey & Head, all of ... Sherman, Tex., and Thompson, Knight, Baker & Harris, of ... Dallas, Tex., on the brief), for appellant ... N.C ... ...