Miller v. Batchelder

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Miller v. Batchelder

117 Mass. 179, 1875 Mass. LEXIS 185

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedFebruary 3, 1875

StatusPublished

Cited by13 cases

This text of 117 Mass. 179 (Miller v. Batchelder) 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

Miller v. Batchelder, 117 Mass. 179, 1875 Mass. LEXIS 185 (Mass. 1875).

Pincite

Opinion

Endicott, J.

Upon the facts reported the petitioners were engaged in a continuous service or employment on the houses of the respondents. This service was rendered under three several agreements. The first was to perform labor, as painters on certain portions of the houses, the owner to furnish the materials ; the second to perform labor and furnish materials in painting the inside walls of the houses. Both these agreements were in writing. The third was an oral agreement, made while the work under the others was in progress, to put up mouldings and borders on the inside walls, when painted; and was performed im[181]*181mediately after the painting was completed under the second agreement. The work under the first and second agreements was concluded on the last day of October, 1872, under the third on November 5, and the certificate was filed on December 4, following.

All these agreements related to the same premises, called for similar kinds of work, and the last two may be said to be addiditional to the first. The third was in terms additional to the second, providing that mouldings and borders should be put up on the inside walls after painting. The whole constituted one employment to do certain stipulated work and furnish certain materials, the details of which, and the prices to be paid therefor, were agreed to on three separate occasions in several agreements, but all entered into before the work under either had been completed, and therefore existing contemporaneously with each other. Under these circumstances the work may be treated as if done under one agreement, and the parties contracting to do it cannot be said to have ceased to labor and furnish labor and material until they had completed all they had agreed to do.

The ruling of the presiding judge that the certificate was not filed in season to preserve the lien for labor and material furnished under the first and second agreements was therefore erroneous. Exceptions sustained.

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

Endicott, J.

Upon the facts reported the petitioners were engaged in a continuous service or employment on the houses of the respondents. This service was rendered under three several agreements. The first was to perform labor, as painters on certain portions of the houses, the owner to furnish the materials ; the second to perform labor and furnish materials in painting the inside walls of the houses. Both these agreements were in writing. The third was an oral agreement, made while the work under the others was in progress, to put up mouldings and borders on the inside walls, when painted; and was performed im[181]*181mediately after the painting was completed under the second agreement. The work under the first and second agreements was concluded on the last day of October, 1872, under the third on November 5, and the certificate was filed on December 4, following.

All these agreements related to the same premises, called for similar kinds of work, and the last two may be said to be addiditional to the first. The third was in terms additional to the second, providing that mouldings and borders should be put up on the inside walls after painting. The whole constituted one employment to do certain stipulated work and furnish certain materials, the details of which, and the prices to be paid therefor, were agreed to on three separate occasions in several agreements, but all entered into before the work under either had been completed, and therefore existing contemporaneously with each other. Under these circumstances the work may be treated as if done under one agreement, and the parties contracting to do it cannot be said to have ceased to labor and furnish labor and material until they had completed all they had agreed to do.

The ruling of the presiding judge that the certificate was not filed in season to preserve the lien for labor and material furnished under the first and second agreements was therefore erroneous. Exceptions sustained.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

117 Mass. 179, 1875 Mass. LEXIS 185, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/miller-v-batchelder-mass-1875.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack