Tobenkin v. Piermont
Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York
Appeal from Municipal Court,' Borough of Manhattan, First District. Action by Harry Tobenkin against Gustav M. Piermont and others to foreclose a mechanic’s lien. From a judgment sustaining a demurrer to the complaint, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed, with leave to plead over.
1Per curiam
The action is to foreclose a mechanic’s lien, and the defendant Jacob Harris has demurred to the complaint on the ground of insufficiency., The demurrer was well taken, because the complaint does not allege that the said defendant has any interest whatever in the premises in suit, or in the controversy, adverse to the plaintiff. Porter v. Woodward, 28 N. Y. Wkly. Dig. 295, affirmed 121 N. Y. 324, 24 N. E. 603; Willets v. Brown, 42 Hun, 140; Hilton Bridge Const. Co. v. Gouverneur, etc., 90 Hun, 584, 35 N. Y. Supp. 976. Moreover, the prayer of the complaint is for judgment foreclosing the lien,…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Hilton Bridge Const. Co. v. Gouverneur & O. R.New York Supreme Court · 1895
- Porter v. Union Blue Stone Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1890