Intili v. Bonnet

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Intili v. Bonnet

143 A. 741, 6 N.J. Misc. 1043, 1928 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 51

CourtSupreme Court of New Jersey

DecidedNovember 23, 1928

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 143 A. 741 (Intili v. Bonnet) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of New Jersey primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Intili v. Bonnet, 143 A. 741, 6 N.J. Misc. 1043, 1928 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 51 (N.J. 1928).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Plaintiff recovered in the court below on a stop-notice under the Mechanics’ Lien law. The appeal specifies a number of alleged errors, for one of which there must be a reversal. The stop-notice served was for $238.76; the proofs that but $229.26 was due the plaintiff. Of this variance there was no explanation on the trial.

[1044]*1044The amendment to the Mechanics’ Lien law {Pamph. L. 1910, p. 500) requires that the claimant shall specify in his stop-notice the amount due as nearly as possible. An unexplained demand for more than may be due is fatal. The reason for this exactness is obvious. • The owner is called on to pay claims to which he may well be a stranger. He is not directly a party to the contract with the claimant and frequently knows nothing of it. In this situation when a notice is served and calls for more than is due he is probably without knowledge whether the claim is just or otherwise. Hence, the requirement not only of good faith in the claim but that in case of variance the claimant shall bear the burden of explanation and establishing that the error was due to honest mistake and not to design or carelesness. Tuttle v. Cadwell, 92 N. J. L. 28.

The judgment is reversed.

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

Per Curiam.

Plaintiff recovered in the court below on a stop-notice under the Mechanics’ Lien law. The appeal specifies a number of alleged errors, for one of which there must be a reversal. The stop-notice served was for $238.76; the proofs that but $229.26 was due the plaintiff. Of this variance there was no explanation on the trial.

[1044]*1044The amendment to the Mechanics’ Lien law {Pamph. L. 1910, p. 500) requires that the claimant shall specify in his stop-notice the amount due as nearly as possible. An unexplained demand for more than may be due is fatal. The reason for this exactness is obvious. • The owner is called on to pay claims to which he may well be a stranger. He is not directly a party to the contract with the claimant and frequently knows nothing of it. In this situation when a notice is served and calls for more than is due he is probably without knowledge whether the claim is just or otherwise. Hence, the requirement not only of good faith in the claim but that in case of variance the claimant shall bear the burden of explanation and establishing that the error was due to honest mistake and not to design or carelesness. Tuttle v. Cadwell, 92 N. J. L. 28.

The judgment is reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

143 A. 741, 6 N.J. Misc. 1043, 1928 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 51, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/intili-v-bonnet-nj-1928.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack