Finn v. . Smith
Cases that cite this one
11 later published cases cite this decision.
- Lehigh Structural Steel Co. v. Nyack Kennel Club (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1939)
- Pascual v. Greenleaf Park Land Co. (N.Y. 1927)
- Fyfe v. . Sound Development Co. (N.Y. 1923)
- Copp v. Firemi (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1918)
- Barrett v. Schaefer (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1914)
- Riley v. Durfey (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1911)
- Levin v. Hessberg (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1909)
- Spring v. Collins Building & Construction Co. (New York Supreme Court 1908)
- Weiss v. Kenney (City of New York Municipal Court 1908)
- Abelman v. Myer (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1907)
- Felgenhauer v. Haas (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1907)
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 this case, which is an action to forelose a mechanic’s lien, the Special Term held that the notice of lien filed by the appellant was fatally defective, in that it failed to state the amount of the materials actually furnished at the time of filing the notice, and"the agreed price or value thereof. The only statement in the appellant’s notice of lien is that the appellant claims a lien on the property described therein “ for five thousand five hundred and eighty-nine dollars and sixty cénts ($5,589.60), being the value and agreed price of certain materials furnished and to be furnished, to wit: Timber, lumber,” etc. When the lien was filed the value of material actually delivered for the construction of the building was only $2,661.29. The trial court found that the amount of the lien was not exaggerated by the appellant willfully or intentionally. Despite of such finding we are of opinion that the decision of the trial* court, that the lien was invalid, was correct, and that under the statute any notice of lien must state either explicitly or by plain inference the value or the agreed price of the labor performed or materials furnished at the time of filing thereof. It was so held by the Appellate Division of the first department in Bradley & Currier Company v. Pacheteau (71 App. Div. 148) and New Jersey Steel & Iron Company v. Robinson (85 App. Div. 512), and both cases were affirmed by this court. (175 N. Y. 492; 178 N. Y. 632.) It is true that in the opinion delivered in the later case of Gilmour v. Colcord (183 N. Y. 342) there is found the expression that “nothingwas decided that would warrant the court in holding that the notice of lien in the present case was defective,” but the decision proceeded on the ground that there was no sufficient exception to the decision *467 of the trial court. The case is not to be considered as overruling the prior decisions of this court.
It follows that the judgment appealed from must be affirmed, with costs.
Cullen, Oh. J., Gray, Edward T. Bartlett, Werner and Hisc'ock, JJ., concur; O’Brien, J., not voting; Chase, J., not sitting.
Judgment affirmed.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.