Jones v. Dodge
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Appeal by the plaintiff, Herbert O. J ones; from, part of a judgment of the Supreme Court in. favor of the defendants, entered in the office of the clerk of the county of Suffolk on the 18th day of December, 1908, upon the decision of the court, rendered after a •trial at the Suffolk Special Term, dismissing the complaint upon the merits in an action brought to foreclose a mechanic’s lien.
1Per curiam
The finding that the lien filed by the plaintiff was fatally defect-' i.ve is. approved. (Bradley & Currier Co. v. Pacheteau, 71 App. Div. 148; affd. as to this, 175 N. Y. 492; Finn v. Smith, 186 id. 465.) But the court could retain tile action for the purpose of a personal judgment against Dodge for work done and material furnished pursuant to the contract, and for extra work and material, provided the plaintiff proved that lie was not in default on his part. (Abbott v. Easton, 195 N. Y. 372.) Such default precluding recovery was found. A scrutiny of the record persuades that the evidence…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Abbott v. . EastonNew York Court of Appeals · 1909
- Bradley Currier Company v. . PacheteauNew York Court of Appeals · 1903
- Bradley & Currier Co. v. PacheteauAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1902
- Abbott v. EastonAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1907
3Cited by3 opinions
- Zimmerman v. Western Builders & Salvage Co.Arizona Supreme Court · 1931
- Jeffrey Towers, Inc. v. Twin Towers, Inc.New York Supreme Court · 1968
- Jones v. DodgeAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1911