Shultz v. C. H. Quereau Co.
New York Court of Appeals
Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the fourth judicial department, entered January 29, 1912, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiffs entered upon a decision of the court on trial at Special Term in actions consolidated pursuant to section 43 of the Lien Law (Laws of 1909, ch. 38). The nature of the action and the facts, so far as material, are stated in the opinion.
Read the full summary
Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the fourth judicial department, entered January 29, 1912, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiffs entered upon a decision of the court on trial at Special Term in actions consolidated pursuant to section 43 of the Lien Law (Laws of 1909, ch. 38). The nature of the action and the facts, so far as material, are stated in the opinion. It was error for the court to allow the lien for items consisting of coal. (Cincinnati R. R. Co. v. Shera, 36 Ind. App. 315; Mossburg v. United Oil & Gas Co., 87 N. E. Rep. 992; McAuliffe…
1Opinion of the CourtCollin, J.
The actions are to foreclose mechanics’ liens. The single question requiring discussion is: Is coal, sold to a contractor and builder of a state highway and used in generating steam in the boilers of road rollers and traction engines used on the contract, materials furnished for the construction of the highway within the meaning and intent of section 5 of the Lien Law. (Cons. Laws, ch. 33.)
Section 5 is: “A person performing labor for or furnishing materials to a contractor, his sub-contractor or legal representative, for the construction of a public improvement pursuant to a contract by such…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Schaghticoke Powder Co. v. Greenwich & Johnsonville Railway Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1905
- George H. Sampson Co. v. CommonwealthMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1909
- Barker & Stewart Lumber Co. v. Marathon Paper Mills Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1911
- Troy Public Works Co. v. . City of YonkersNew York Court of Appeals · 1912
- S. B. Luttrell & Co. v. Knoxville, La Follette & Jellico RailroadTennessee Supreme Court · 1907
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by28 opinions
- Franzen v. Southern Surety Co.Wyoming Supreme Court · 1926
- Red River Const. Co. v. Pierce Petroleum CorporationSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1928
- Southern Surety Co. v. Metropolitan Sewerage CommissionWisconsin Supreme Court · 1923
- Church E. Gates & Co. v. John F. Stevens Construction Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1917
- Mid-Continent Petroleum Corp. v. Southern Surety Co.Court of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976) · 1928
23 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.