Davis v. Arthur
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Petition, to enforce a mechanic’s lien, filed by Charles E. Nutter and another, intervening petitioners, in a suit commenced by Joseph H. Davis to enforce a like lien against the same estate, notice of which was given by him to the owner of the building, and to all other creditors having liens of the same kind upon the same estate.
Read the full summary
Petition, to enforce a mechanic’s lien, filed by Charles E. Nutter and another, intervening petitioners, in a suit commenced by Joseph H. Davis to enforce a like lien against the same estate, notice of which was given by him to the owner of the building, and to all other creditors having liens of the same kind upon the same estate. At the hearing in the Superior Court on a motion to dismiss the petition, before Richardson, J., it appeared that the intervening petitioners ceased to labor on or to furnish labor for the building on February 13, 1897; that on May 10, 1897, their attorney entered…
1Opinion of the CourtKnowlton, J.
Section 9 of the Pub. Sts. c. 191, in regard to mechanic’s liens, is as follows: “ Unless a suit for enforcing the lien is commenced within ninety days after the person desiring to avail himself thereof ceases to labor on, or to furnish labor or material for the building or structure, the lien shall be dissolved.” The intervening petitioners, Nutter and Seabury, ceased to labor on or furnish labor for the building on February 13, 1897, and they filed their petition claiming a lien on June 28, 1897, more than ninety days thereafter. The only question in the case is whether their lien can now…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Angier v. Bay State Distilling Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1901
- Burrell v. WayMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1900
- Galloy v. SparrowAppellate Court of Illinois · 1911