Cannon v. Van Wagner
New York Court of Common Pleas
Appeal from a judgment of a district court. This was a proceeding commenced in the Sixth District Court of the City of New York, for the foreclosure of a mechanic’s lien. The plaintiffs, constituting the firm of P. Cannon & Co., claimed a lien against the defendants, Wagner, as owner, and Rowe, as contractor, for building materials furnished. Upon the trial the plaintiffs called the defendant Rowe, the contractor, as a witness.
Read the full summary
Appeal from a judgment of a district court. This was a proceeding commenced in the Sixth District Court of the City of New York, for the foreclosure of a mechanic’s lien. The plaintiffs, constituting the firm of P. Cannon & Co., claimed a lien against the defendants, Wagner, as owner, and Rowe, as contractor, for building materials furnished. Upon the trial the plaintiffs called the defendant Rowe, the contractor, as a witness. The counsel of defendants objected to his competency, on the ground that he was an interested party ; but the objection was overruled. Judgment having been rendered…
1Opinion of the CourtWoodeuff, J.
The grounds stated in the notice of appeal, relate chiefly to alleged errors in fact, in the finding of the justice. We have so often held, that where the evidence is conflicting, we do not interfere with the finding below, even if we think that upon the same evidence we might not have *107come to the same conclusions, that it seems wholly unnecessary to repeat the proposition.
Taking into view the testimony of the co-defendant, Rowe, there was some evidence in support of every fact necessary to support the plaintiff’s case. He testifies to his contract with the owner, — that he performed the work…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Fitch v. BatesNew York Supreme Court · 1851
- Holman v. Dord & RoweNew York Supreme Court · 1851