Kirschner v. Mahoney

96 N.Y.S. 195
CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York
DecidedNovember 24, 1905
StatusPublished

This text of 96 N.Y.S. 195 (Kirschner v. Mahoney) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Kirschner v. Mahoney, 96 N.Y.S. 195 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1905).

Opinion

MacLEAN, J.

The plaintiff failing to prove, as was necessary, an indebtedness by the owner to the contractor (Keavey v. DeRago, 20 Misc. Rep. 105, 45 N. Y. Supp. 77), in his action to foreclose a mechanic’s lien, was not entitled to judgment therefor (Madden v. Lennon, 23 Misc. Rep. 704, 52 N. Y. Supp. 8), and, the evidence being vague as to who is his debtor for goods sold and delivered, a personal judgment may not by modification be rendered, under the provisions of section 3412 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The judgment must therefore be reversed, and a new trial ordered.

Judgment reversed, and a new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide the event. All concur.

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

Related

Keavey v. De Rago
20 Misc. 105 (Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York, 1897)
Madden v. Lennon
23 Misc. 704 (Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York, 1898)
Madden v. Lennon
52 N.Y.S. 8 (Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York, 1898)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
96 N.Y.S. 195, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kirschner-v-mahoney-nyappterm-1905.