Legal Opinion

Maas v. Olmstead

New York Supreme Court

Decided April 19, 1926PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the CourtGibbs, J.

Plaintiff instituted this action to foreclose a mechanic’s lien. The defendants named in the summons, complaint and notice of pendency of the action Were the owners and a lessee of the property against which the lien was filed. Thereafter and on December 4, 1925, an order was entered directing that one Otto L. Spannhake, a subsequent lienor, be made a party defendant and that the notice of pendency of the action be amended to include his name. A supplemental summons and complaint were served on him February 15, 1926. The amendment, however, was not made to the notice of pendency of the…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Manton v. . Brooklyn Flatbush Realty Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1916
  2. Charles M. Gray Marble & Slate Co. v. SchaeferAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1923

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Myrick v. Sleepy Hollow Lake, Inc.New York Supreme Court · 1977

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

Powered by the Exa API