Legal Opinion

Atlantic Terra Cotta Co. v. Rubenfield Construction Corp.

New York Supreme Court

Decided January 5, 1926PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtCropsey, J.

In this action to foreclose a mechanic’s lien, the only question is whether defendants Young and Creamer are entitled to recover. They are lienors, and their hens, with others, were bonded, the defendant Eagle Indemnity Company being the surety. The surety contests the right of those two defendants to recover, because, although their answers were served upon the surety, they were not served upon the owner against whom those defendants had their claims.

The undertaking given to discharge the hens was eonditione ’ to pay any judgment that the henors might obtain against the property. The…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Morton v. . TuckerNew York Court of Appeals · 1895
  2. Harley v. . PlantNew York Court of Appeals · 1914
  3. Maneely v. City of New YorkAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1907
  4. Ringle v. MatthiessenAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1896
  5. Vitelli v. MayAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1907

5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. State Bank v. Dan-Bar Contracting Co.New York Supreme Court · 1960
  2. John Comolli & Co. v. MargoliesNew York Supreme Court · 1927
  3. Lehmann v. Kingston Plaza, Inc.New York Supreme Court · 1964
  4. Regal Lumber Co. v. Buck, New York County Courts1993

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API