Biershenk v. Stokes
New York Court of Common Pleas
Appeal from city court, general term. Action by Philip Biershenk and another against William E. D. Stokes. A demurrer to a part of defendant’s answer was sustained by the special term of the city court. From an order of the general term of that court reversing the order of the special term, and overruling the demurrer, plaintiffs appeal.
1Opinion of the Court
Daly, O. J.
The complaint was for work, labor, and services, and the-answer of the defendant, besides denying that the plaintiffs performed said work for him, set up as new matter constituting a defense and counterclaim, facts showing that the plaintiffs had filed an unauthorized mechanic’s lieu against his property for the same work, and thus subjected him to the expense of clearing the said lien from his land, and to the cost of defending any action they might bring thereon, and counterclaiming $500 damages therefor. To this new matter plaintiffs demurred on the ground of insufficiency in…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Belknap v. McIntyreNew York Supreme Court · 1855
3Cited by7 opinions
- Biershenk v. StokesNew York Court of Common Pleas · 1894
- In re Gould Coupler Co.New York Supreme Court · 1894
- Richards v. LittellAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York · 1896
- Romaine v. BrewsterNew York Court of Common Pleas · 1894
- Deering v. SchreyerNew York Supreme Court · 1899
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.