Beatty v. Parker

6 N.E. 754, 141 Mass. 523, 1886 Mass. LEXIS 247
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court·Decided May 7, 1886·Published·Cited by 22 cases

Opinion

W. Alleíí, J.

The drain-pipe was part of the house. The house was built upon a street in which there was a sewer, and was fitted for the use of the city water, to which connection with the sewer was essential. The piping, inside of the house, and outside of it to the sewer, was necessary to the use of the house and a part of it, and was included in the contract for building it. The house would be incomplete and unfinished without the pipe, and it would pass by a deed of the house as a part of it. It is immaterial whether it was inside or outside the walls of the house, or whether it was above ground or under ground, or whether it extended one foot or thirty feet. It is immaterial also whether the fee of the land in the street was or was not in the owner of the lot. It must be assumed that the pipe was rightfully laid to the sewer, even if the fee of the street was not in the respondent. The pipe did not become the property of the owner of the fee of the street, but belonged to the owner of the house, and he had an interest in the soil of the street to sustain his pipe, which could pass by a deed of the lot.

Currier was employed by the respondent to erect the house, including the laying of the pipe. Wright contracted with Currier to lay the pipe at a fixed price, and employed the petitioner to do the labor and furnish the materials. Wright was authorized to consent to the work done by the plaintiff. Parker v. Bell, 1 Gray, 429. But if Wright had not authority, Currier certainly had, and the work was done by the petitioner with his knowledge, and implied, if not express consent. According to the report, the lien must be established for the sum of $81.83, and interest from the time of filing the petition.

' Ordered accordingly.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Beatty v. Parker, 6 N.E. 754, 141 Mass. 523, 1886 Mass. LEXIS 247 (Mass. 1886).

6 N.E. 754 (Beatty v. Parker) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Newell v. Carlow, Newell & Smith, Inc.
403 A.2d 1209 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1979)
J. R. Christ Construction Co. v. Willete Associates
221 A.2d 538 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1966)
Ladue Contracting Co. v. Land Development Co.
337 S.W.2d 578 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1960)
Curtis & Pope Lumber Co. v. Wolmer
100 N.E. 670 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1913)
Speer Hardware Co. v. Bruce
150 S.W. 403 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1912)
Feeny v. Rothbaum
137 S.W. 82 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1911)
Friedman v. County of Hampden
90 N.E. 851 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1910)
Park City Meat Co. v. Comstock Silver King Mining Co.
103 P. 254 (Utah Supreme Court, 1909)
Wells v. Christian
76 N.E. 518 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1906)
Vickery v. Richardson
75 N.E. 136 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1905)
Kennedy v. Commonwealth
65 N.E. 828 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1903)
Reid v. Berry
59 N.E. 760 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1901)
Nash v. Commonwealth
54 N.E. 865 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1899)
Daley v. Legate
47 N.E. 1013 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1897)
Hughes v. Lambertville Electric Light, Heat & Power Co.
53 N.J. Eq. 435 (New Jersey Court of Chancery, 1895)
Dugan Cut Stone Co. v. Gray
21 S.W. 854 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1893)
National Foundry & Pipe Works, Ltd. v. Oconto Water Co.
52 F. 43 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Wisconsin, 1892)
Dugan Cut-Stone Co. v. Gray
43 Mo. App. 671 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1891)