Mathers v. Connelly
Olin Mathers & A. v. William Connelly & A.
Opinion of the Court
Blandin, J.
The case of Ferns v. Company, 81 N. H. 283, is decisive in favor of the defendants and the plaintiff’s exceptions must be overruled. There the Court held that to secure a lien under the statute the plaintiff must “(1) state in his writ the purpose for which the suit is brought, s.
17; (2) describe the property on which he claims the lien with reasonable accuracy, . . . and (3) direct the officer to attach it to preserve his lien, ...” The opinion then goes on to say “While the plaintiffs stated in their writ that the suit was ‘brought *108 for the purpose of securing a mechanic’s lien/ they did neither of the other things the court holds they must do to preserve their lien.” See also, Goudie v. Company, 81 N. H. 88, 91;
Wason v. Martel, 68 N. H. 560;
Hill v. Callahan, 58 N. H. 497;
Bryant v. Warren, 51 N. H. 213; 53 C. J. S., Liens, s. 5.
Exceptions overruled.
All concurred.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 1 case
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.