Mink v. Heep

223 A.D. 220, 227 N.Y.S. 698, 1928 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6174
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMarch 30, 1928
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 223 A.D. 220 (Mink v. Heep) 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
Mink v. Heep, 223 A.D. 220, 227 N.Y.S. 698, 1928 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6174 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1928).

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The action was brought to foreclose an alleged mechanics’ hen in connection with the erection of a foundation wall of a two-family house for which it is claimed the defendants contracted with the plaintiffs.

There was no basis whatever for the judgment rendered against the defendants. The evidence very clearly demonstrated that the plaintiffs failed to perform their contract with the defendants in any respect. The wall which the plaintiffs claim to have erected [221]*221was on property other than that owned by the defendants. The evidence fairly shows that plaintiffs themselves assumed to have a survey made and to properly locate the building, and when they built the wall they did not build it with building stone in accordance with the specifications in the contract, but built it of concrete. The error in locating the building upon property other than that of the defendants was clearly that of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs should be held to their breach of their contract as to the material used in the erection of the foundation wall.

The judgment and order appealed from should be reversed, with costs, and plaintiffs’ complaint dismissed, with costs, upon the ground that the judgment rendered was unauthorized, and that there was no basis for the rendition thereof; that it appears from the testimony at the trial that the plaintiffs have no cause of action against the defendants.

Present — Dowling, P. J., Merrell, Finch, McAvot and Proskauer, JJ.

Judgment and order reversed, with costs, and complaint dismissed, with costs. Settle order on notice.

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

Related

Pitts v. Ahlswede
139 So. 2d 159 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1962)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
223 A.D. 220, 227 N.Y.S. 698, 1928 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6174, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mink-v-heep-nyappdiv-1928.