Legal Opinion

Parsons v. Copeland

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine

Decided July 1, 1851PublishedCited by 8 opinions

On Report from Nisi Prius', Tenney, J. Petition for partition of land. The petitioner stated his case to be that Buswell and Copeland, jr. formerly owned the whole land, of which a partition is now sought; that, while owning it, they contracted with the petitioner to labor for them in the erection of a factory building thereon; that he labored in pursuance of the contract; that, in order to establish his lien, and to recover payment for his labor, he brought an action…

Read the full summary

On Report from Nisi Prius', Tenney, J. Petition for partition of land. The petitioner stated his case to be that Buswell and Copeland, jr. formerly owned the whole land, of which a partition is now sought; that, while owning it, they contracted with the petitioner to labor for them in the erection of a factory building thereon; that he labored in pursuance of the contract; that, in order to establish his lien, and to recover payment for his labor, he brought an action against them on the 29th of July, and attached the whole estate on the 30th of July 1847, being within ninety days of the…

1Opinion of the CourtShepley, C. J.

— The title of the petitioner must depend upon proof, that he performed labor by virtue of a contract, upon a building erected by Copeland and Buswell, whereby a lien upon the estate for its payment was created under the provisions of the statute, chap. 125, sect. 37, 38.

He appears to have commenced a suit against them on July 29, 1847, and to have caused the estate to be attached, and to liave recovered judgment and caused an execution issued thereon, to be levied upon an undivided portion of the estate.

The respondent exhibits a conveyance of the whole estate from Copeland and Buswell with…

2Cited by8 opinions

  1. Duff v. DuffCalifornia Supreme Court · 1886
  2. Miles v. StrongSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1896
  3. Kamm v. Bank of CaliforniaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1887
  4. De Bock v. De BockCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1919
  5. Rudnick v. ShoenbergSupreme Court of Delaware · 1923

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API