Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

35 Me. 481

Gray v. Carleton

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine

Decided July 1, 1853

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · decided 1853-07-01

On Report from Nisi Prius, Sheprey, C. J., presiding. Writ oe Entry. In 1848, Thomas Warren owned a lot of land, and agreed verbally with one Rowe, to sell it to him for $500, and to make some advances of materials and money to help Rowe to build a house upon it. Warren was to own the land and house, until paid the purchase money and advances, and then convey it to Rowe. Rowe proceeded to build the house, receiving from Warren the promised advances.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1853-07-01

How this case has been cited

Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently August 1978

3 state decisions

101853186018701880189019001910192019301940195019601970decided

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 →

Shepley, C. J.

¶1— The demandant appears to have labored during the year 1848 upon a house built by Henry Rowe, on land then owned by Thomas Warren, who had, as Rowe states, agreed to provide certain materials and to assist him with money to enable him to build the house, and had agreed to convey the land, on which it was to be built, upon payment of an agreed price, and of the money advanced, and of the value of the materials furnished.

¶2The demandant caused the estate to be attached to secure a lien for payment of his services ; recovered judgment against Rowe, in October, 1850, and caused an execution issued thereon to be levied on part of the lot of land, on Nov. 15, 1850.

¶3This suit has been commenced to recover possession of the land thus levied upon. Rowe does not appear to have performed his contract with Warren, or to have become at any time the owner of the land. It is only by virtue of the lien created by statute, c. 125, § 37, and the proceedings before stated, that the demandant claims to have acquired title.

¶4There are insuperable obstacles to a recovery. The- labor does not appear to have been performed by virtue of any contract with the owner, or by virtue of any contract made with another person “ who had contracted with such owner.”

¶5There does not appear to have been any contract between Rowe and Warren, that Rowe should build the house for Warren. He appears to have been building it for him*483self, for his own use or gain, or loss, and to have obtained credit from Warren to enable him to do it; and for security the house and land were to remain the property of Warren until he should be paid. The demandant does not therefore present a case, in which a lien was created by the statute.

¶6If the Court could consider that he had, the statute was amended by the Act approved on June 28, 1850, by striking out the words, £< or other person who had contracted with such owner,” and this repeal of that clause was in force before the levy in this case was made ; and there remained no legal authority for making such a levy upon the land of another, than the judgment debtor. Bangor v. Goding, 35 Maine, 73. Demandant nonsuit.

Tenney, Wells, Howard, and Appleton, J. J., concurred.
/35/me/481 · .json · Public domain