Hart v. Wheeler

New York Supreme Court

Hart v. Wheeler

1 Thomp. & Cook 403

DecidedSeptember 15, 1873

StatusPublished

This text of 1 Thomp. & Cook 403 (Hart v. Wheeler) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hart v. Wheeler, 1 Thomp. & Cook 403 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1873).

Pincite

Opinion

Barnard, P. J.

The defendants, Wheeler and Young, were the owners of the land sought to be affected by the lien. They were the owners as to the lien act, notwithstanding they had agreed to sell the property to Forfar and Anderson. Chap. 478, Laws of 1862, § 1.

Forfar and Anderson were not contractors with the owners to build for the owners upon the premises. They were building upon land, which as between the parties to the agreement, belonged to Forfar and Anderson. Wheeler and Young agreed to advance money to aid in the work, for which they were to be repaid by mortgage on the improved premises. The work which Hall did under the contract, as assignee of Forfar and Anderson, was work done by permission of the owners, and for such work there is no limit to the amount of the lien, other than " the value of such labor and materials.” The judgment should be reversed and a new trial granted at special term, costs to abide event.

Judgment reversed and new trial granted.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Barnard, P. J.

The defendants, Wheeler and Young, were the owners of the land sought to be affected by the lien. They were the owners as to the lien act, notwithstanding they had agreed to sell the property to Forfar and Anderson. Chap. 478, Laws of 1862, § 1.

Forfar and Anderson were not contractors with the owners to build for the owners upon the premises. They were building upon land, which as between the parties to the agreement, belonged to Forfar and Anderson. Wheeler and Young agreed to advance money to aid in the work, for which they were to be repaid by mortgage on the improved premises. The work which Hall did under the contract, as assignee of Forfar and Anderson, was work done by permission of the owners, and for such work there is no limit to the amount of the lien, other than " the value of such labor and materials.” The judgment should be reversed and a new trial granted at special term, costs to abide event.

Judgment reversed and new trial granted.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 Thomp. & Cook 403, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hart-v-wheeler-nysupct-1873.