Legal Opinion

Terrell v. Meisenhelder

New York County Courts

Decided June 8, 1932PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtHawkins, J.

The question in this case is whether foreclosure can be had on a mechanic’s hen where the copy of the notice of hen, and not the original, was filed. The action being against the owners of the realty on which the improvements were made, and the proof being that the improvements were made at the request of and under *912agreement with the builder, and not with them, there is no liability on them personally, even though they looked on while the work was being done, and expressly consented to it. The consent, express or implied, is the ground for imposing a lien, but it cannot be taken as an implied…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Italian Mosaic & Marble Co. v. City of Niagara FallsNew York Supreme Court · 1928
  2. Mozarsky v. Whinston Bros., Inc., SchneiderNew York Court of Appeals · 1930
  3. Kingston v. M.S. Construction CorporationNew York Court of Appeals · 1928
  4. Kelley v. City of SyracuseNew York Supreme Court · 1894
  5. Smith v. KerrNew York Supreme Court · 1888

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. In re the Wilaka Construction Co.New York Supreme Court · 1937
  2. Harrison & Burrowes, Inc. v. StateNew York Court of Claims · 1976

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

Powered by the Exa API