Legal Opinion

Nieman-Irving & Co. v. Lazenby

New York Court of Appeals

Decided November 21, 1933PublishedCited by 17 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtLehman, J.

The plaintiff agreed to perform the work and furnish the materials required for the reconstruction of the residence of the defendant Lazenby in accordance with plans prepared by the owner’s architects. The owner agreed to pay to the plaintiff the cost of the work and materials plus ten per cent. Additions and changes were authorized and directed by the defendant’s architects. The plaintiff filed a hen for the unpaid balance of the amount it claimed was due to it. The hen was discharged after the owner filed security approved by the court. Then this plaintiff began this action to estabhsh its…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Jacob & Youngs, Inc. v. KentNew York Court of Appeals · 1921
  2. Spence v. . HamNew York Court of Appeals · 1900
  3. Steel Storage & Elevator Construction Co. v. F. W. StockNew York Court of Appeals · 1919
  4. Burt Olney Canning Co. v. . StateNew York Court of Appeals · 1921

3Cited by17 opinions

  1. United States Ex Rel. Johnson v. Morley Const. Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1938
  2. Matter of LoomisNew York Court of Appeals · 1937
  3. Bellizzi v. Huntley Estates, Inc.New York Court of Appeals · 1957
  4. United States Pipe & Foundry Co. v. City of WacoCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1936
  5. Specialties Development Corp. v. C-O-Two Fire Equipment Co.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1953

12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API