Legal Opinion

Linneman v. Bieber

New York Supreme Court

Decided April 12, 1895PublishedCited by 6 opinions

Appeal from judgment on report of referee. Action by Mary J. Linneman against Charles E. Bieber and Mary J. Bieber to foreclose a mechanic’s lien. There was a judgment in favor of plaintiff, and defendants appeal.

1Opinion of the CourtBradley, J.

The purpose of the action was to foreclose a mechanic’s lien on certain premises on Michigan street, in the city of Buffalo, for materials and work employed there pursuant to contract with Charles E. Bieber, and to set aside as fraudulent a conveyance of the premises made by him to his wife, the defendant Mary J. Bieber. The contract with Mr. Bieber to furnish the materials and erect the building was made and performed by John F. Linneman, and the price agreed upon therefor was $3,508. In the outset it was necessary to make provision for funds to enable Bieber to complete the payment for the…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Starin v. . KellyNew York Court of Appeals · 1882
  2. Zoeller v. . RileyNew York Court of Appeals · 1885
  3. Gross v. DalyNew York Court of Common Pleas · 1875
  4. Teaz v. ChrystieNew York Court of Common Pleas · 1855

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Rukeyser v. Fountain & Choate, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1918
  2. Gilmour v. ColcordAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1904
  3. Concord Construction Co. v. PlanteAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1910
  4. Rukeyser v. RoussNew York Supreme Court · 1918
  5. Margulies v. Seigel, New York County Courts1919

1 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