Chamberlain v. O'Connor
New York Court of Common Pleas
The action was brought under the lien law of 1851, by the mechanic against the owner. A number of claims had been filed .with the county clerk, and the defendant upon an affidavit stating that he was indebted to the contractor in a sum less than the plaintiff’s claim against the contractor, and has paid all the residue of the moneys belonging to the contractor, moved for an order permitting him to pay the amount he so admitted to be due into court, and that the different…
Read the full summary
The action was brought under the lien law of 1851, by the mechanic against the owner. A number of claims had been filed .with the county clerk, and the defendant upon an affidavit stating that he was indebted to the contractor in a sum less than the plaintiff’s claim against the contractor, and has paid all the residue of the moneys belonging to the contractor, moved for an order permitting him to pay the amount he so admitted to be due into court, and that the different claimants might be substituted in his place as defendants, under the 122d section of the Code.
1Opinion of the Court
Ingraham, First Judge.
This action was brought to foreclose a claim under the lien law.
A number of claimants have filed the necessary papers to create liens, and the defendant now applies for an order permits *46ting him to pay into court a certain sum, which he admits to he owing to the contractor—substituting such claimants in his place and discharging him from liability.
The plaintiff, however, insists that there is due from the defendant a larger sum than he admits to be due, and sufficient to pay himself and previous liens;
It is clear that the defendant does not bring himself within the…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Nelson v. Goree'r Adm'rSupreme Court of Alabama · 1859
- Smith v. Grand Lodge A. O. U. W.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1907
- Stevens v. RobinsonNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1922
- Cronin v. CroninCity of New York Municipal Court · 1886