Hawkins v. Jacques

Superior Court of Rhode Island

Hawkins v. Jacques

10 R.I. Dec. 114

CourtSuperior Court of Rhode Island

DecidedNovember 16, 1933

DocketEq. No. 507

StatusPublished

This text of 10 R.I. Dec. 114 (Hawkins v. Jacques) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Superior Court of Rhode Island primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hawkins v. Jacques, 10 R.I. Dec. 114 (R.I. Ct. App. 1933).

Pincite

Opinion

CARPENTER, J.

This matter came before the Court on a petition to establish a mechanic’s lien in favor of Albert E. Hawkins against the property of Daniel A. Jacques and Flora [115]*115E. Jacques, of Coventry, Rhode Island. The amount claimed upon the lien was $192.50. The respondents claim that a lien for that amount'should not be established because the petitioner has not properly performed the work that he agreed to do, for which the sum of $192.50 was the balance due, and ask that they be allowed to recoup for defective work.

For complainant: William H. Mc-Soley, Thomas H. Clarke. For respondents: Quinn, Kernan & Quinn.

This Court has examined the evidence carefully and feels that $75 is a fair allowance for defective work and that a lien should be established for $117.50. Therefore, a decree may be entered establishing a mechanic’s lien on the property of the respondents for $117.50, said lien to take precedence over all mortgages and liens that may be upon said property.

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

CARPENTER, J.

This matter came before the Court on a petition to establish a mechanic’s lien in favor of Albert E. Hawkins against the property of Daniel A. Jacques and Flora [115]*115E. Jacques, of Coventry, Rhode Island. The amount claimed upon the lien was $192.50. The respondents claim that a lien for that amount'should not be established because the petitioner has not properly performed the work that he agreed to do, for which the sum of $192.50 was the balance due, and ask that they be allowed to recoup for defective work.

For complainant: William H. Mc-Soley, Thomas H. Clarke. For respondents: Quinn, Kernan & Quinn.

This Court has examined the evidence carefully and feels that $75 is a fair allowance for defective work and that a lien should be established for $117.50. Therefore, a decree may be entered establishing a mechanic’s lien on the property of the respondents for $117.50, said lien to take precedence over all mortgages and liens that may be upon said property.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

10 R.I. Dec. 114, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hawkins-v-jacques-risuperct-1933.