Per Curiam.
The court has already decided in this case
that the petition is amendable, and that the petitioner might have a lien for materials furnished, but not for labor.
Murphy
v.
Guisti,
22 R. I. 588.
(1)
The opinion was not, as claimed by the respondent, in conflict with
Goff
v.
Hosmer,
20 R. I. 91, which held that the statute required an account to be filed in cases where the claim was based upon an account. But this last case also held that as the statute used the words “account or demand,” the latter
term covered cases where a particular account, could not be given. The court considered this case of that character, because the petitioner was entitled to a lien for materials furnished, which, being under a general contract, were not the subject of an account,
i. e.,
a separate book account, but they would have to be proved according to their value, and the claim as made for the full contract price could not injure an owner or purchaser, if the lien could attach only for a smaller sum’
Harry C. Curtis and Walter J. Ladd,
for petitioner.
Harrison A. McKenney,
for respondent.
The petitioner, therefore, has leave to amend his petition for the amount of materials furnished.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI