Maroni v. Junty

Supreme Court of Rhode Island

Maroni v. Junty

58 A. 450, 26 R.I. 109, 1904 R.I. LEXIS 23

DecidedMarch 23, 1904

StatusPublished

This text of 58 A. 450 (Maroni v. Junty) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme 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

Maroni v. Junty, 58 A. 450, 26 R.I. 109, 1904 R.I. LEXIS 23 (R.I. 1904).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

This petition for a lien must be dismissed, as the requirements of the statute have not been followed.

(1) The first notice was in due form, and had attached to it an account which was without a heading or anything to show from whom it was due. For this reason it could not serve as the commencement of legal proceedings, and that it was not so intended appears from the fact that no petition was filed within twenty days thereafter..

The second notice does not conform to the, statute as a commencement of legal proceedings, for two reasons: (1) It has no account attached to it, and (2) it does not purport to relate to the same delivery of material as the former notice. The first notice was recorded January 30, 1902, and was for materials delivered within sixty days prior thereto. The second notice, dated July 29, 1902, is for materials delivered “within sixty days last past;” that is, more than four months after the preceding notice.

*110 John C. Quinn, for petitioner. James M. Gillrain, for respondent.

The petitioner, therefore, has failed to take the necessary-steps for a lien, and the petition must be dismisséd.

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

Per Curiam.

This petition for a lien must be dismissed, as the requirements of the statute have not been followed.

(1) The first notice was in due form, and had attached to it an account which was without a heading or anything to show from whom it was due. For this reason it could not serve as the commencement of legal proceedings, and that it was not so intended appears from the fact that no petition was filed within twenty days thereafter..

The second notice does not conform to the, statute as a commencement of legal proceedings, for two reasons: (1) It has no account attached to it, and (2) it does not purport to relate to the same delivery of material as the former notice. The first notice was recorded January 30, 1902, and was for materials delivered within sixty days prior thereto. The second notice, dated July 29, 1902, is for materials delivered “within sixty days last past;” that is, more than four months after the preceding notice.

*110 John C. Quinn, for petitioner. James M. Gillrain, for respondent.

The petitioner, therefore, has failed to take the necessary-steps for a lien, and the petition must be dismisséd.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

58 A. 450, 26 R.I. 109, 1904 R.I. LEXIS 23, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/maroni-v-junty-ri-1904.