Freeto v. Houghton
Supreme Court of New Hampshire
Assumpsit, to secure a lien. Facts found by the court, who reserved the question, whether, under Gen. St., c. 125, ss. 11 and 12, and Laws of 1868, c. 1, s. 38, the plaintiff’s sixty days lien, for labor performed and materials furnished for erecting the defendant’s building, had expired. The last labor was performed and the last materials were furnished more than sixty days before the attachment.
Read the full summary
Assumpsit, to secure a lien. Facts found by the court, who reserved the question, whether, under Gen. St., c. 125, ss. 11 and 12, and Laws of 1868, c. 1, s. 38, the plaintiff’s sixty days lien, for labor performed and materials furnished for erecting the defendant’s building, had expired. The last labor was performed and the last materials were furnished more than sixty days before the attachment. The plaintiff left his job unfinished, and has not resumed it, because the defendant did not pay him according to the contract.
1Opinion of the CourtFoster, J.
The plaintiff’s lien continued sixty days “ after such labor performed or materials furnished.” Whether it would have continued during a temporary suspension of the work if the job had been completed or resumed under the original or any other contract, we need not inquire. The contract was broken, by the defendant wrongfully, by the plaintiff rightfully. This suit is brought, not upon the contract, but a rescission of it. More than sixty days before the attachment the contract had ceased to be in force, or to be executed by either party. During that period nothing was done or furnished by the…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Perley v. DolloffSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1881