Coddington v. Beebe
Supreme Court of New Jersey
In case. Error to the Hudson circuit. This action was brought in the Circuit Court of the county of Hudson, by Israel Coddington & Co., plaintiffs, agaiust Nathan J. Beebe, builder, and the Hudson County Dry Dock and Wet Dock Company, owners, to recover for lumber, materials, and labor furnished to Beebe, and for the amount of which, it was averred that the said company were liable under the mechanics lien law, the same having been applied to a certain building and fixture…
Read the full summary
In case. Error to the Hudson circuit. This action was brought in the Circuit Court of the county of Hudson, by Israel Coddington & Co., plaintiffs, agaiust Nathan J. Beebe, builder, and the Hudson County Dry Dock and Wet Dock Company, owners, to recover for lumber, materials, and labor furnished to Beebe, and for the amount of which, it was averred that the said company were liable under the mechanics lien law, the same having been applied to a certain building and fixture for manufacturing purposes, &c., known by the name of a floating dock. The plaintiffs having filed their declaration, the…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Vredenburgh, J.
Between the 19th day of April, 1859, and the 15th day of July, of the same year, Beebe bought of Coddington $6203 worth of lumber. On the 25th day of April, 1860, Coddington sued the Dock Company, to make Beebe’s debt out of their property. He claims to do this by virtue of the mechanics lien law. Nix. Dig. 487.* At the trial the jury found a special verdict, upon which the court gave judgment in favor of the Dock Company, whereupon Coddington brought this writ of error.
On the trial, it appeared by the pleadings and the special verdict…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Olmsted v. M'NallIndiana Supreme Court · 1845
3Cited by2 opinions
- United States v. LaBergeDistrict Court, D. Maryland · 1967
- Hughes v. DursoNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1961