55 A. 757 | R.I. | 1903
The petitioners, as architects, prepared plans and specifications for, and supervised and directed, the construction of certain buildings and fixtures therein for the respondents, and claim therefor the lien provided for in chapter 206 of the General Laws.
The parts of the statute which are material upon the question presented read as follows: "SECTION 1. Whenever any building . . . shall be constructed . . . such building . . . together with the land . . . is hereby made liable and shall stand pledged for all the work done in the construction, erection, or reparation of such building . . . and for the materials used in the construction, erection, or reparation thereof which have been furnished by any person," etc.
The great weight of authority, under substantially similar statutes, gives the lien to supervising architects both for the labor of supervision and the labor of preparing plans. Knight
v. Norris,
In Pennsylvania an architect employed to make plans and supervise the construction in accordance therewith is entitled to a lien, Bank of Penn'a v. Gries, 35 Pa. St. 423; but one who furnishes plans alone and does not supervise is not entitled.Price v. Kirk, 90 Pa. St. 47; Rush v. Able, 90 Pa. St. 153.
In Nebraska a lien is given for merely furnishing plans.Henry Coatsworth Co. v. Halter, 79 N.W. 616, 619.
In Iowa it has been held that an architect has no lien for furnishing plans if they are not used. Foster Libbie v.Tierney, 91 Ia. 253.
In Illinois and Ohio it is doubted whether the lien will apply for plans if there is no supervision. Taylor v.Gilsdorff,
In Mitchell v. Packard,