Boston Furnace Co. v. Dimock
Cases that cite this one
9 later published cases cite this decision.
- Reeves v. York Engineering & Supply Co. (5th Cir. 1918)
- American Casting Co. v. Commonwealth (Mass. 1931)
- Morrison v. Segal (Mass. 1930)
- E. Corey Co. v. H. P. Cummings Construction Co. (Me. 1919)
- Curtis & Pope Lumber Co. v. Wolmer (Mass. 1913)
- George H. Sampson Co. v. Commonwealth (Mass. 1909)
- Kennedy v. Commonwealth (Mass. 1903)
- Jennings v. Vahey (Mass. 1903)
- Scannell v. Hub Brewing Co. (Mass. 1901)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
In the opinion of a majority of the court, there was no evidence that the portable ranges for which the lien is claimed “were to be furnished as parts of the several houses in which they were put,” or were “ applied so as to constitute parts of the buildings,” within the meaning of Turner v. Wentworth, 119 Mass. 459, 465. See Dimmick v. Cook, 115 Penn. St. 573; Schaper v. Bibb, 71 Md. 145. In the opinion of Mr. Justice Knowlton and of Mr. Justice Lathrop there was evidence, and the case should have been sent to a jury. I concur in that opinion, if the question what would pass as between vendor and purchaser be the test of what are “ materials . . . used in the erection ... of a building.” Pub. Sts. c. 191, § 1. Mr. Justice Barker and myself, however, are disposed to think that the
Exceptions overruled.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.