Opinion ID: 2172002
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Choate v. Quintal et al.

Text: In the Choate v. Quintal appeal, plaintiff raises an argument identical to that in the Adams appeal regarding the District Court's jurisdiction to enforce mechanics' liens. We need not, however, reach the merits in plaintiff's appeal in the Quintal case. After removing the case against him to the Superior Court, defendant Quintal, as third-party plaintiff, brought a complaint naming as defendants the Depositors Trust Company and two officers of another corporation. In it, he alleged that Depositors Trust Company had unlawfully transferred funds in a bank account in his name to an account in a second bank and that the funds were later transferred by the second bank to an account in the name of the officers' corporation. On motion of each individual third-party defendant, the complaint against them was dismissed with prejudice. Although the complaint against Depositors Trust Company was never resolved, no certificate under Rule 54(b), M.R. Civ.P., was included in the record on appeal. Plaintiff Choate's appeal in the Quintal suit must, therefore, be dismissed as premature. E. g., Quint v. Baxter, Me., 330 A.2d 128 (1975). Even if plaintiff's appeal in the Quintal case were properly before us, Quintal's act of removing the case against him to Superior Court could not affect our disposition of plaintiff's appeal. The plaintiff last performed labor for and furnished materials to Quintal over 90 days before the removal. Plaintiff failed, therefore, to preserve his lien for enforcement by a timely action filed with the clerk of courts within 90 days after the last of the labor or services were performed or labor, materials or services . . . so furnished . . . . 10 M.R.S.A. § 3255 (1964). [4] The entries must be: Appeal in Choate v. Adams et al. denied; judgment affirmed. Appeal in Choate v. Quintal et al. dismissed. POMEROY, WERNICK, ARCHIBALD, DELAHANTY, GODFREY and NICHOLS, JJ., concurring.