Biershenk v. Stokes
New York Court of Common Pleas
Appeal from city court, general term. Action by Philip Biershenk and others against William E. D. Stokes to recover for work, labor, and services and materials alleged to have been rendered and furnished at defendant’s request. From a judgment of the city court (26 H. Y. Supp. 88) affirming a judgment dismissing the complaint, plaintiffs appeal. Affirmed.
1Opinion of the CourtBischoff, J.
The complaint was for work, labor, and services performed, and materials furnished, at defendant’s request, and the answer, besides generally denying the allegations of the complaint, interposed as a counterclaim a claim for damages alleged to have accrued to defendant out of plaintiffs’ unauthorized filing of a notice of lien claimed pursuant to the provisions of the mechanic’s lien law. Laws 1885, c. 342. A demurrer to the counterclaim was sustained at special term, but, on appeal to the general term of the court below, was overruled. Defendant thereupon caused final judgment in his favor…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Romeyn v. SicklesNew York Court of Appeals · 1888
- Arnold v. . AngellNew York Court of Appeals · 1875
- Steinweig v. . the Erie RailwayNew York Court of Appeals · 1870
- Kellett v. RathbunNew York Court of Chancery · 1833
- Reid v. VenderheydenCourt for the Trial of Impeachments and Correction of Errors · 1826
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by12 opinions
- Palmer v. Schonhorn Enterprises, Inc.New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1967
- Herrmann v. Newark Morning Ledger Co.New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1958
- Mahon v. American Cas. Co. of ReadingNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1961
- Mead v. Wiley Methodist Episcopal ChurchNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1952
- In Re Presentment to Superior CourtNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1951
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.