McElroy v. Keily

Supreme Court of Rhode Island

McElroy v. Keily

63 A. 238, 27 R.I. 474, 1906 R.I. LEXIS 22

DecidedFebruary 20, 1906

StatusPublished

This text of 63 A. 238 (McElroy v. Keily) 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

McElroy v. Keily, 63 A. 238, 27 R.I. 474, 1906 R.I. LEXIS 22 (R.I. 1906).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The court was principally moved to grant a re-argument of this case upon the presentation by petitioner’s, counsel of a list of proceedings in lien cases wherein, it was urged by him, eminent counsel fairly representing the best practice of the bar of this State had for a long time followed a construction of the statute different from that which the court placed upon it in its opinion, 27 R. I. 64. We do not find this contention sustained by these cases. The very careful review of the list which has been furnished us by counsel for the respondent shows that in a majority of the cases cited, which are not so defective in other respects as to invalidate them as precedents, a separate account against each building was filed as the commencement of legal process. The cotemporaneous construction of the statute which is claimed by the petitioner’s counsel as controlling does not appear.

■ Upon the plain language of the statute we are confirmed in our former opinion that in a case like the present a separate account of the materials furnished for each building is required.

The'petition is remanded to the Superior Court, with direction to dismiss the same.

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

Per Curiam.

The court was principally moved to grant a re-argument of this case upon the presentation by petitioner’s, counsel of a list of proceedings in lien cases wherein, it was urged by him, eminent counsel fairly representing the best practice of the bar of this State had for a long time followed a construction of the statute different from that which the court placed upon it in its opinion, 27 R. I. 64. We do not find this contention sustained by these cases. The very careful review of the list which has been furnished us by counsel for the respondent shows that in a majority of the cases cited, which are not so defective in other respects as to invalidate them as precedents, a separate account against each building was filed as the commencement of legal process. The cotemporaneous construction of the statute which is claimed by the petitioner’s counsel as controlling does not appear.

■ Upon the plain language of the statute we are confirmed in our former opinion that in a case like the present a separate account of the materials furnished for each building is required.

The'petition is remanded to the Superior Court, with direction to dismiss the same.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

63 A. 238, 27 R.I. 474, 1906 R.I. LEXIS 22, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcelroy-v-keily-ri-1906.