Kent v. Brown
Supreme Court of New Hampshire
Assumpsit, for a furnace, cistern, and attachment sold to the defendant. The plaintiffs claim a lien for their price, under Gen. St., c. 125, s. 11. Facts found by a referee. The court overruled the objection that they were not furnished for erecting, altering, or repairing a house.
1Opinion of the CourtBingham, J.
The furnace was enclosed in brick and mortar, with a smoke-pipe passing to the chimney, and hot air-pipes passing to the several apartments, and was designed as a permanent method of warming the house. The cistern and pipes bringing the water to and carring it from the house, were designed to provide it permanently with water. They would pass by a conveyance of the house. Tuttle v. Robinson, 33 N. H. 119; Wadleigh v. Janvrin, 41 N. H. 503, 514, and cases cited. Whether they were furnished for erecting, altering, or repairing the house is a mixed question of law and fact, and its decision by a…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Cummings v. Center HarborSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1876