The Providence news. (Providence [R.I.]) 1891-1906, 1897-05-12
ON LIEN.
Important DeCiS-
ion Given
BY the Appellate Court in
the HOSmer Case.
First Notice Declared to Be
insufficient.
Did Not Contain Full Statement OF
Account Claimed.
Second Notice Upheld -C0ntrasted With
the Bradley Decision.
Second Notice Upheld -Conirasted With
the Bradley Decision.

The decision of ithe Appellate Court in
the case Of James G. Goff VS.. f. II. Hos
mer which was handed down this morn
ing is an important one as ii deals with
the matter of notice under the lien law.
Justice Stiness who wrote the opinion
says, after recalling the provisions of the
general laws in regard to the subject of
liens:
| In this case notice was duly given to
! the respondent, and recorded that the
J petitioner intends TO claim, and does
| claim. "a lien accompanied by the general
| statement, Ito building materials,
/ SlI3 2l0 " the date of record being April
| II, 1896. After this, on August Is 1896
| the particular account for which the lien
| IS claimed, with notice to what building
| and land and TO what and whose estate in
the same the account referred, was also
recorded, and the petition was filed in
court on the following day.
Under these facts the respondent
claims that the commencement Of legal
proceedings" was.complete under tho first
recorded notice. and that the lien is lost
because the petition was not filed within
20 days thereafter. His argument is that
the notice of an intention To claim "a lien
uud the COmmenceInent OF legal proceed
same paper, and recorded at the same
time; and that the first notice filed in
this case was of that character, by reason
Of the words, "and does claim lien. "
We see no reason, rs was intimated in
Tngley vs.. White IL X. l. 533 why the
two notices may not be continued SO as 60
be the commencement OF legal proceed
ings. - There is no need To have notices
on record that are duplicates and if the
first contains all that is required by tho
statute for the commencement of proceed
ings we are unable TO see why that is not
enough
Purpose Is Clear.
The purpose of the provisions which
imply two notices is clear; first, notice of
intention to claim n lien, both TO the
owner and the public, and second, the
first step in legal process by a notice
showing what the lien relates to- The
evident purpose OF this last notice is to
show that legal process has begun. Hence
we said in 1ingley vs.. White, that con-
formity To the statute requires that this
fact must appear, If both notices are COM
bined. There must not on ly bo notice of
an intention but also commencement
of process In order that the owner or pur-
chasers NAV be appraised Of the fact. II
either Of these two things is lacking the
provisions of the statute are not fulfilled.
The question in this case, then, is
w
pliance with the statute as TO amount TO
n commencement of legal process. We do
not think il was In the first place no
account was filed with the notice. The
statute contemplates n full statement of
accounts, not mere lump sum, together
with the items, as far rs practicable, so
that the owner may know the details Of
the claim and thus be able TO SEQ whether
they should be paid or resisted
Not Compliance With the Law.
1t is not always possible TO file an ac-
count with the first notice, because the
notice Of an intention 60 claim a lien may
be given before the delivery of materials
is completed, and so before an account
can bc made mp. The omission of such
an account was not "a compliance with
tho statute, and hence could not be, and
evidently was not intended 60 be- q com
moncement of legal proceedings accord
ing TO its terms. The second notice gave
the full account and added the statement
which we commend as good practice:
"Said account is flied for the purpose of
commencing proceedings TO enforce a
lien, ~ etc This fact not appearing in
the first notice, 1t not only did not com
ply with the requirements of the statute
as 90 the account but 10 did not conform
20 the purpose of the statute in giving
notice of the commencement Of legal pro-
cCedings.
1t is urged however that this inten-
tion was disclosed by tho words and
docs claim lien, >" i'm the first notice
We do not think that they should be so
construed. They simply give notice OF
n present claim, which is quite distinct
from notice that the claimant has
begun 10 enforce the claim.
The word "domand" is used in the
statute with the word account" but we
think that this intended to cover cases
which may not be the subject Of an ao-
count or where particular account
cannot be given, and that 10 is not in
tended 20 substitute "a general statement
in place of an account In other cases.
Tho respondent refers tosltho decree In
the case of Arnold VS. Bradley, Esq,
il79, entered at tho present term, IN sup
port OF his position. From an inspection
Of tho papers we find that.one notice only
was recorded, and that such notice related
only 60 an intention TO claim lien. Had
we known this fact we should not nave
entered the decree. Several attorneys ap-
pearcd In the case, which was heard In
parts at lengthy intervals, number of
lien petitions having been consolidated;
and as TO this claim the statement was
made 10y counsel. which was not disputed,
that the notice contained all that the stat
ute required The question argued was
whether there could be onss notice instead
of two, assuming the unquostioncd fact
as stated, the court said. as Me-say now,
thnt it saw no reason why the two notices
could not -be combined and the decree
was thereupon entered without objection.
We state these facts In order that the de-
cree may not I've misunderstood to be n
precedent 20 the contrary Of the opinion
here expressed.
We therefore decide that the second
notice In this case was tho commencement
OF legal proceedings and that tue petition
mas duly ulCA