Fletcher v. Stedman

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Fletcher v. Stedman

34 N.E. 183, 159 Mass. 124, 1893 Mass. LEXIS 99

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedMay 18, 1893

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 34 N.E. 183 (Fletcher v. Stedman) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Fletcher v. Stedman, 34 N.E. 183, 159 Mass. 124, 1893 Mass. LEXIS 99 (Mass. 1893).

Pincite

Opinion

Holmes, J.

This is a petition against George R. Steelman and Lucy A. Hobart to enforce a lien, under Pub. Sts. c. 191. The only ground on which the petitioner’s right is denied is that he failed to give notice in writing to the owner of the property that he intended to claim such lien, as required by § 3, “if such owner is not the purchaser of such materials.” The owner of the property ordered the materials in person, on behalf of a firm of which he was one of the two members. He was one of the two joint purchasers in the technical sense of those who acquired the title to the materials before they were annexed to the land, and who became liable for the price. He was the only one who conducted the transaction. He had the actual knowledge which it is said to be the object of this provision that he shall have. Whitford v. Newell, 2 Allen, 424, 426. We have no doubt that he was a purchaser of the materials within the exception of § 3. See Smith v. Johnson, 2 MacArthur, 481; Van Court v. Bushnell, 21 Ill. 624; Roach v. Chapin, 27 Ill. 194; Mellor v. Valentine, 3 Col. 255.

Judgment for petitioner.

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

Holmes, J.

This is a petition against George R. Steelman and Lucy A. Hobart to enforce a lien, under Pub. Sts. c. 191. The only ground on which the petitioner’s right is denied is that he failed to give notice in writing to the owner of the property that he intended to claim such lien, as required by § 3, “if such owner is not the purchaser of such materials.” The owner of the property ordered the materials in person, on behalf of a firm of which he was one of the two members. He was one of the two joint purchasers in the technical sense of those who acquired the title to the materials before they were annexed to the land, and who became liable for the price. He was the only one who conducted the transaction. He had the actual knowledge which it is said to be the object of this provision that he shall have. Whitford v. Newell, 2 Allen, 424, 426. We have no doubt that he was a purchaser of the materials within the exception of § 3. See Smith v. Johnson, 2 MacArthur, 481; Van Court v. Bushnell, 21 Ill. 624; Roach v. Chapin, 27 Ill. 194; Mellor v. Valentine, 3 Col. 255.

Judgment for petitioner.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

34 N.E. 183, 159 Mass. 124, 1893 Mass. LEXIS 99, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fletcher-v-stedman-mass-1893.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack