Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1911-10-09


terial in the construction, altering and
repairing the buildings The objection
was that il was variance. and did
not set forth such 4 lien statement as
correspondent to the claim in the bill.
II contained all the necessary state
ments prescribed by the statutes 10
preserve the lien; a statement of the
Iamomt due, credits given, a descrip-
ton OF the property sufficiently accu-
rate to identify it, the name of the
ipwner, and WIS subscribed and sworn
to. In addition, it contained the state
mcnt that the material and labor were
furnished by virtue Of Il contract with
O. Harold Grant Wing and l.. e. Wing.
upon the dwelling house described in
+ the bill owned by Flora j. Wing.
| The statute does not require the
claim filed in the town clerks Office
To contain the name Of the person with
whom the lienor contracted. The paper
vas offered in evidence to show that
the plaintiff had complied with the
statute in regard to fling his state
mcnt in the town Clerks office within
60 days of the time he ceased 10 labor
or furnish material, and was admitted
in evidence for that purpose. II was
admissible for no other purpose when
offered by the plaintiff Ii It contained
more than the statute required. it still
contained all the statute required, and
was admissible for the purpose of prov
ing that the plaintiff had filed the
statement required by law. The fact
that the PLAINTIFF stated therein that
the work was done and the material
furnished by virtue Of Il contract with
t G.. Harold Grant Wing and l.. Il. Wing
not being required by statute would
mot defeat the lien, but would be eVl-
idonce that the defendants might use
| to imDcach the testimony of the plain
tiff when he claimed that the contract
was made with q. Harold Grant Wing
individually, and WAS undoubtedly
fused for that purpose at the argument.
In order for the plaintiff to maintain
| his case II was necessary for him 10
prove that he bad filed in the town
clerks Office Il certificate containing
The statements prescribed in Section
| 81. Chapter SO r s. and the record
was offered and admitted 10 prove that
he had complied with the statute not
as proof of his claim, bat as proof that
! the lien claimed had not been dis
iyolvcd by his neglect Ia file the state
ncnt required by statute within 90
#days from the time he had ceased 10
labor or furnish material.
TIE second exception is To the rul-
ing OF the court upon the demurrer.
which set forth the improper joinder
ol parties defendant under Paragraphs
& ana Q. The demurrer was filed to the
iar!einal bill. and assigned as cause OF
demurrer the improper iainder Of de-
tnt4nta. After the demurrer Was filed
an asnouament was allowed With the
consent 81 the defendants, and tie
defendants answered the amended bill
~ the denial Of the matters therein
contained II the; had wished To OBJ
ject t. the amended bill b. demurrer
they should have filed II new demurrer
10 the amended bill. 1t was not permis-
siple To argue upon the demurrer flee
L. the original bill for causes set
forth therein after the bill had been
amended nv consent and an amend
ment filed BY defendants To their an
svers, hut a new demurrer should nave
been filed, specifying the objections to
| the amended bill. So that the record
would have shown that il vas passed
upon after the amendment AS no de-
| murre- was filed to the amended bill,
! exceptions TO tho overruling Of the de-
murrer are not properly before the
court: but the objections urged are
omen to the plaintiff upon appeal.
II is objected that the amended bill
alleges the existence of the same con-
tract as alleged in the original bill.
The position NJ the defendant is that
the contract in Paragraph was the
individual contract OF G.. Harold Grant
Wing. and the contract alleged in Par
agraph 9 was the Joint contract of O.
Harold Grant Wing, Flora ]. Wing
and l.. =. Wing; that they are seTa-
rate claims and should have been IN
forced by separate suits against eaeh
Of the contracting parties: that the
| plaintiff cannot maintain this action
and recover judgment against G. Har-
old Grant Wing and the land and the
buildings upon his individual contract
ana his Joint contract with Flora ].
Wing and /. b. Wing, and that he Is
seeking to do so by this action.
Para crarh of the bill alleges the
individual contract OF @. Harold Grant
Wing. and he admits il 10 be his con-
| tract. The amendment set forth that
| the charges in Paragraph 2 of the
bill. when allege the labor and ma
terial set forth III Exhibit Il We're fur
nished upon the credit of G. Harold
Grant Wins Flera j. Wing and l.. Is.
Wing, and wire merely additional to
AMI notifications OF said original con-
tract mentioned in Paragraph g. made
by the authority of G.. Harold Grant
Wing. If SO, then all the items charged
for were furnished upon tile indiViG-
ual contract of G.. Harold Grant Wing
If it was modified and added 10 with
the consent OF q. Harold Grant Wing
he was liable for their value and the
amendment was. in fact. a diseontn-
uance OF the Sut against l.. Is. WING
and Flora j Wing, except as she ap-
| peared as owner of the property
Sought 20 be charged with the plain
tifT's lien. and the court would have
go ruled if rither party had requested.
IN saet. the court did so rule by Tie
final decree dismssing the bill as to