Legal Opinion

Miller v. Schmitt

New York Supreme Court

Decided June 15, 1901PublishedCited by 2 opinions

Action to foreclose a mechanic’s lien. Motion for an order-directing in what sum an undertaking must be given to discharge the lien.

1Opinion of the CourtBlanchard, J.

This. is an action brought to foreclose a mechanic’s lien. The property consists of two lots, one formerly belonging to defendant Schmitt and the other to defendant Ahr. Each agreed to sell his respective lot to the defendant McKisch by written agreement. The defendant McKisch proceeded to build houses upon the two lots, the front portion of the houses being on the lot of Ahr and the rear portion on the lot of Schmitt. As McKisch did not pay to the plaintiff the money due to him for the goods sold to him by plaintiff, the lien in question was filed. The defendant Ahr makes this motion for an…

2Cited by2 opinions

  1. Kessler v. A. W. Haile Motor Co.New York Supreme Court · 1926
  2. Evans v. EvansSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1926

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API