Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

200 Mass. 393

Davidson v. Stewart

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Decided January 5, 1909

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · decided 1909-01-05

Petition to establish a mechanic’s lien for labor performed and materials furnished under an entire contract in writing between the petitioner and the respondent Joseph I. Stewart. The petition was filed in the Superior Court for the county of Suffolk on May 17,1907. The contract was contained in a proposition in writing by the petitioner to Stewart and an acceptance in writing by Stewart.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1909-01-05

How this case has been cited

Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently June 1972

3 state decisions

1019091910192019301940195019601970decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Knowlton, C. J.

¶1This is a petition to enforce a mechanic’s lien for labor and materials upon a lot of land and five houses thereon, in the erection of which houses the labor and materials were furnished. When the contract was made there was a duly recorded mortgage on the land. Afterwards, while the work was going on, the lot was divided into four smaller lots. At a later date three of the lots were released from the mortgage, and still later the mortgage on the other lot was foreclosed by a sale, the proceeds of which were no more than enough to satisfy the mortgage. The respondents contend that the lien cannot be enforced against the three remaining lots, because of the releases and the foreclosure.

¶2By virtue of the contract and the work done under it a lien was acquired upon the whole lot, which was divided subsequently. But this land was subject to the rights of the mortgagee. The petition is to enforce the lien upon the whole large lot, which includes the four smaller lots. Except as against the title held under the mortgage, the lien is established. The release of three of the lots from the mortgage leaves the lien with full effect upon them, while the foreclosure of the mortgage on *396the other lot leaves nothing remaining in that upon which the lien can continue in force. The judge rightly refused the rulings requested and established the lien. It can be enforced and given effect only upon so much of the original lot as has not been taken out from under the lien by the foreclosure of the mortgage.

¶3The provisions of the contract in relation to payment in part by notes did not deprive the petitioner of his right to a lien. Payment has not been made, except of the amount credited. The judge, decided rightly that the note afterwards returned was not accepted as an absolute payment.

¶4Exceptions overruled.

/200/mass/393 · .json · Public domain