Legal Opinion

Gardner & Meeks Co. v. Herold

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Decided March 1, 1909PublishedCited by 1 opinion

On error to the Supreme Court.

1Opinion of the Court

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Swayze, J.

This action was brought under the third section of the Mechanics’ Lien act (Pamph. L. 1898, p. 538), against Rudolph Herold and Wilhelmina Herold, his wife, to recover money due the plaintiff from Albert Raas, for materials used in the erection of a building on Mrs. Hero-Id’s land, under a contract with her husband. It was admitted at the trial that the defendant Wilhelmina had in hand mo-re money than the amount of the plaintiff’s claim (probably meaning the balance of the contract price due to Raas). The plaintiff discontinued as to Rudolph…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Carlisle v. KnappSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1889
  2. Beckhard v. RudolphNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1904
  3. Earle v. S. A. Willets & Co.Supreme Court of New Jersey · 1893

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Arrow Builders Supply Corp. v. Hudson Terrace Apartments, Inc.Supreme Court of New Jersey · 1954

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

Powered by the Exa API