Wells v. Williams
New York Supreme Court
APPEAL from a judgment entered upon the report of a referee, The • following facts, substantially, appeared in this canse : The' Nassau Water Company, incorporated in April, 1855, for the purpose of supplying Brooklyn with fresh water, made a contract with Henry S. Wells & Coi to construct the mason work of the aqueduct, which the former were building for the city of Brooklyn.
Read the full summary
APPEAL from a judgment entered upon the report of a referee, The • following facts, substantially, appeared in this canse : The' Nassau Water Company, incorporated in April, 1855, for the purpose of supplying Brooklyn with fresh water, made a contract with Henry S. Wells & Coi to construct the mason work of the aqueduct, which the former were building for the city of Brooklyn. Henry S. Wells & Co. made a sub-contract with the defendant 8. A. Parkes, and one Dunham, to do a section of the work contracted to be done by them for the Nassau Water Company; the latter consenting to such…
1Opinion of the Court
*571 By the Court,
Mullin, J.
Neither the Nassau Water Company, nor Henry 8. Wells & Co. ever entered into any agreement with the plaintiff or the firm of which he was a member, by which they bound themselves to pay to the plaintiff or his firm the moneys demanded in the complaint in this action, or any part thereof.
The right to relief, then, must rest on some lien which the law gives the plaintiff, by which the court is enabled to seize upon the fund in question and apply it in satisfaction and discharge of such lien.
By the contract between the Nassau Water Company and Henry S. Wells & Co. the…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Faurote v. State ex rel. GordonIndiana Supreme Court · 1887
- Swindle v. State ex rel. LeakIndiana Court of Appeals · 1896
- In re OliverDistrict Court, N.D. Texas · 1904
- Krakauer v. HardmanNew York Marine Court · 1876