McKinney v. White

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

McKinney v. White

15 A.D. 423, 44 N.Y.S. 561

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedMarch 15, 1897

StatusPublished

Cited by10 cases

This text of 15 A.D. 423 (McKinney v. White) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

McKinney v. White, 15 A.D. 423, 44 N.Y.S. 561 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1897).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam :

This suit is to foreclose a mechanic’s lien. The complaint was dismissed because the notice of lien was not in the form prescribed by the statute. The statute (Chap. 342, Laws of 1885) requires that the notice shall state the nature and amount of labor and services performed or of materials furnished or to be furnished, and also whether all the work for which the claim is made has been actually performed or furnished, and if not, how much of it. To entitle a claimant to the benefit of the statute its directions must be substantially observed, such compliance being necessary to confer jurisdiction upon the court. (Davidsburgh v. Knickerbocker Life Ins. Co., 90 N. Y. 526.) And, as said in Foster v. Schneider (50 Hun, [424]*424155), the provisions of the Mechanics’ Lien Law are entirely plain, and may be complied with without the least difficulty.

An examination of the lien here tiled will show that as to the $8,500, just what that represented is not stated, for we nowhere find in connection therewith the nature and amount of the labor and services performed, or the nature and amount of the materials furnished or to be furnished, or the amount of work remaining to be performed to complete the plaintiff’s contract. So with respect to the extra work, while the time and amount are given, the nature of the labor and services performed are not stated. Moreover, as the lien filed included both the claims for $8,500 and $500, we do not think, because the latter more nearly approached a valid lien by complying with the conditions of the statute, that we should endeavor to sustain so much of the lien by a strained construction of the statute, while holding that the balance of the lien, and for much the larger amount, was invalid. Omissions and misstatements of the character pointed out in the lien here filed have been uniformly held to invalidate the lien.

The judgment should, therefore, he affirmed, with costs.

Present—Van Brunt, P. J., Rumsey, Patterson, O’Brien and Ingraham, JJ.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

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

Per Curiam :

This suit is to foreclose a mechanic’s lien. The complaint was dismissed because the notice of lien was not in the form prescribed by the statute. The statute (Chap. 342, Laws of 1885) requires that the notice shall state the nature and amount of labor and services performed or of materials furnished or to be furnished, and also whether all the work for which the claim is made has been actually performed or furnished, and if not, how much of it. To entitle a claimant to the benefit of the statute its directions must be substantially observed, such compliance being necessary to confer jurisdiction upon the court. (Davidsburgh v. Knickerbocker Life Ins. Co., 90 N. Y. 526.) And, as said in Foster v. Schneider (50 Hun, [424]*424155), the provisions of the Mechanics’ Lien Law are entirely plain, and may be complied with without the least difficulty.

An examination of the lien here tiled will show that as to the $8,500, just what that represented is not stated, for we nowhere find in connection therewith the nature and amount of the labor and services performed, or the nature and amount of the materials furnished or to be furnished, or the amount of work remaining to be performed to complete the plaintiff’s contract. So with respect to the extra work, while the time and amount are given, the nature of the labor and services performed are not stated. Moreover, as the lien filed included both the claims for $8,500 and $500, we do not think, because the latter more nearly approached a valid lien by complying with the conditions of the statute, that we should endeavor to sustain so much of the lien by a strained construction of the statute, while holding that the balance of the lien, and for much the larger amount, was invalid. Omissions and misstatements of the character pointed out in the lien here filed have been uniformly held to invalidate the lien.

The judgment should, therefore, he affirmed, with costs.

Present—Van Brunt, P. J., Rumsey, Patterson, O’Brien and Ingraham, JJ.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

15 A.D. 423, 44 N.Y.S. 561, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mckinney-v-white-nyappdiv-1897.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack