Mathers v. Connelly
This text of 58 A.2d 510 (Mathers v. Connelly) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of New Hampshire primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
The case of Ferns v. Company, 81 N. H. 283, is decisive in favor of the defendants and the plaintiff’s exceptions must be overruled. There the Court held that to secure a lien under the statute the plaintiff must “(1) state in his writ the purpose for which the suit is brought, s. 17; (2) describe the property on which he claims the lien with reasonable accuracy, . . . and (3) direct the officer to attach it to preserve his lien, ...” The opinion then goes on to say “While the plaintiffs stated in their writ that the suit was ‘brought *108 for the purpose of securing a mechanic’s lien/ they did neither of the other things the court holds they must do to preserve their lien.” See also, Goudie v. Company, 81 N. H. 88, 91; Wason v. Martel, 68 N. H. 560; Hill v. Callahan, 58 N. H. 497; Bryant v. Warren, 51 N. H. 213; 53 C. J. S., Liens, s. 5.
Exceptions overruled.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
58 A.2d 510, 95 N.H. 107, 1948 N.H. LEXIS 194, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mathers-v-connelly-nh-1948.