Birtwell v. Hosmer

Supreme Court of Rhode Island

Birtwell v. Hosmer

38 A. 946, 20 R.I. 309, 1897 R.I. LEXIS 114

Supreme Court of Rhode Island·Decided December 7, 1897·Published

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The petitioner has failed to show a compliance with the statute, since the mere filing of an account, with notice of an intention to claim a lien, is not a commencement of legal process to enforce the lien within the meaning-of the statute, 1 as construed in Tingley v. White, 17 R. I. 533, and Goff v. Hosmer, 20 R. I. Part 1, 93, which requires a statement that the lodging of the account or demand is for the purpose of commencing legal process to enforce the lien. As suggested by counsel for the respondent, the commencement of legal process ought not to be left to implication.

The petition must therefore be dismissed.

1

Gen. Laws R. I. cap. 206, § 7.'

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

Per Curiam.

The petitioner has failed to show a compliance with the statute, since the mere filing of an account, with notice of an intention to claim a lien, is not a commencement of legal process to enforce the lien within the meaning-of the statute, 1 as construed in Tingley v. White, 17 R. I. 533, and Goff v. Hosmer, 20 R. I. Part 1, 93, which requires a statement that the lodging of the account or demand is for the purpose of commencing legal process to enforce the lien. As suggested by counsel for the respondent, the commencement of legal process ought not to be left to implication.

The petition must therefore be dismissed.

1

Gen. Laws R. I. cap. 206, § 7.'

Birtwell v. Hosmer, 38 A. 946, 20 R.I. 309, 1897 R.I. LEXIS 114 (R.I. 1897).

Pincite

38 A. 946 (Birtwell v. Hosmer) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.