Webster v. Real Estate Imp. Co.
| Decision Date | 09 January 1886 |
| Citation | 6 N.E. 71,140 Mass. 526 |
| Parties | WEBSTER v. REAL ESTATE IMP. CO. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
W.H. Moody, for petitioner.
E.T Burley and N.C. Bartlett, for respondent.
The petitioner seeks to enforce a mechanic's lien under Pub.St. c. 191, § 1, for labor performed and furnished in the erection of a building. His account consists of a large number of items of charge for hauling lumber and sand to the premises upon which a building was in process of erection. One Killam and the petitioner, under a contract with him carted the lumber and sand charged in his account. Under certain circumstances, a lien may be established for work done away from the premises in the construction of a building. In cases where the inside furnish of the house has been got out at the carpenter's shop, or where the lumber has been sawed and planed at the mill, or the iron work done at the blacksmith shop, in the repair of a vessel, it has been held that a lien may be established for work thus done away from the premises or vessel in preparing material which is intended for use, and is actually used in the construction or repair. Dewing v. Wilbraham Congregational Soc., 13 Gray, 414; Bennett v Shackford, 11 Allen, 444; Jones v. Keen, 115 Mass. 170; Wilson v. Sleeper, 131 Mass. 177.
In the last case, although the labor was not performed upon the premises, it was done on the material "which was designated and intended for use in the building on the premises, and was in fact so used." Such labor was therefore, to all intents and purposes, performed in the erection, alteration, or repair of a building under the terms of the statute. Where, for the sake of convenience, or from necessity, the material is shaped, the lumber sawed, planed, and fitted for its proper place in the structure, where the stairs are built or the doors are made for the building away from the premises, but in reality as parts of the labor of construction or repair, intended to be used, and actually so used, becoming parts of the structure, this work and labor are as effectual in laying the foundation for a lien as if performed upon the land on which the house is erected.
These cases furnish no precedent for the case at bar. The petitioner does not allege that he performed any labor upon material which became part of the structure, so as to change its shape or character in order to adapt it to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial