Whitney v. Joslin
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Petition by Levi S. Whitney and two others to enforce a mechanics’ lien under the Gen. Sts. c. 150. At the trial in the superior court, before Dewey, J., it appeared that Peter Bourassa made a contract with the respondent’s husband, Ebenezer L. Joslin, to build a barn on her land; that Bourassa began the work, but abandoned it before it was finished; and that the petitioners, who were partners under the name of L. S. Whitney '& Sons, entered into a contract with the…
Read the full summary
Petition by Levi S. Whitney and two others to enforce a mechanics’ lien under the Gen. Sts. c. 150. At the trial in the superior court, before Dewey, J., it appeared that Peter Bourassa made a contract with the respondent’s husband, Ebenezer L. Joslin, to build a barn on her land; that Bourassa began the work, but abandoned it before it was finished; and that the petitioners, who were partners under the name of L. S. Whitney '& Sons, entered into a contract with the respondent, of which they signed the following memorandum : “ Agreement made and concluded July 6, 1870, by and between L. S.…
1Opinion of the CourtMobtost, J.
The petitioners claim a lien under their contract with the respondent, dated July 6,1870. By this contract, the respondent agrees to pay them $281 for work and materials already' furnished for the barn, upon the consideration that they shall pay all outstanding bills for such work and materials; and also to pay them for all materials used in the completion of the barn. We are of opinion that they cannot maintain a lien for the $281. If they ever had a lien for the materials furnished to Bourassa, they have waived it by the new contract. The enforcement of such lien is inconsistent with the…
2Cited by5 opinions
- Colter v. FreseIndiana Supreme Court · 1873
- Abbott v. NashSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1886
- Marr v. Washburn & Moen Manufacturing Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1896
- Taliaferro v. StevensonSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1895
- Reardon v. AshmanMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1914