Keogh v. Main
The Superior Court of New York City
Appeal by defendant Main from judgment in favor of plaintiff and defendants Mulry, foreclosing certain mechanics’ liens, on property of the defendant Main, in the city of New York. The facts are stated in the opinion.
Read the full summary
Appeal by defendant Main from judgment in favor of plaintiff and defendants Mulry, foreclosing certain mechanics’ liens, on property of the defendant Main, in the city of New York. The facts are stated in the opinion. I. The notices are not verified as required by the statute of 1880. It is an essential perequisite to the creation of the lien that the notice should in its statements comply with the requirements of the statute (Beals v. Congregation B’Nai Jeshurun, 1 E. D. S. 654; Fogarty v. Wick, 8 Daly, 166), and be verified as required by the statute (Conklin v. Wood, 3 E. D. S. 662). But…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court.—Ingraham, J.
This is an action to foreclose a mechanics’ lien on premises No. 23 West Twenty-third street, in the City of New York, owned by defendant Main.
The court ordered that the premises in question be sold, and directed that from the proceeds, after paying the costs, the referee pay to plaintiff the amount of a mechanics’ lien ; and second, to pay to the defendants, Thomas Mulry and *186Thomas M. Mulry, the amount of a mechanics’ lien filed by them, and from this judgment, defendant Main appealed.
Plaintiff’s lien was filed and verified under chapter 486 of the Laws of 1880, and…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- McKenna v. . EdmundstoneNew York Court of Appeals · 1883
- Stoddart v. KeyNew York Supreme Court · 1881
- Fogarty v. WickNew York Court of Common Pleas · 1878