Moore v. . Mausert

49 N.Y. 332
CourtNew York Court of Appeals
DecidedApril 30, 1872
StatusPublished
Cited by44 cases

This text of 49 N.Y. 332 (Moore v. . Mausert) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Moore v. . Mausert, 49 N.Y. 332 (N.Y. 1872).

Opinion

Grover, J.

In Ely v. Holton (15 N. Y., 595), it was decided by this court that the effect of an amendment of a statute made by a subsequent statute declaring that such statute shall be amended so as to read as follows, retaining a part of the statute amended and incorporating therein new provisions, was not to repeal the part retained and re-enact the same, but that such part of the statute continued in force from the first enactment, and that the new provisions incorporated became operative from the time the amendatory statute took effect. It would follow that, where certain provisions of the original statute were omitted from the amendatory statute, such provisions were abrogated and ceased to form any part of the statute after such time. Applying these principles to the present case, it follows that the word “ hereafter,” in the first line of section 1, of chap. 402, p. 1086, Laws of 1854, being contained in the section as amended by chapters 588, p. 1355, Laws of 1869, continues to speak from the time of the passage of the act of 1854, and applies to and includes all labor and materials after that time; and that the new provision incorporated in amendatory statute, requiring notice to be filed in the office of the county clerk of the county in which the property was situate, took effect when the same became operative; and that the provision for filing notice in the office of the town clerk of the town, in the fourth section being left out of the section as amended, was abrogated at the same time. The amendatory statute took effect before the filing of the notice by the lienor in the town clerk’s office. There was at that time no statute giving a lien upon filing' notice in the town clerk’s office. Ho lien was, therefore, acquired by filing the notice in that office. Ho notice was filed in the office of the county clerk, the place where it should have been filed, as the statute then stood,, to acquire a *336 lien. The order of the General Term reversing the judgment of the referee in favor of the lienor must he affirmed, and judgment final given for the owner upon the stipulation.

All concur.

Order affirmed; judgment accordingly.

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

Related

Shiv-Ram, Inc. v. McCaleb
892 So. 2d 299 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 2004)
Atlanta Metallic Casket Co. v. Mosby Truck Service, Inc.
131 S.E.2d 590 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1963)
County of Saratoga v. Saratoga Harness Racing Ass'n
5 A.D.2d 347 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1958)
In re Pink
179 Misc. 46 (New York Supreme Court, 1942)
Randall v. Bailey
43 N.E.2d 43 (New York Court of Appeals, 1942)
Eith v. City of New York
165 Misc. 18 (New York Supreme Court, 1937)
Posadas v. National City Bank
296 U.S. 497 (Supreme Court, 1936)
The San Juan
250 F. 93 (Second Circuit, 1918)
People v. Santer
35 N.Y. Crim. 57 (New York Court of General Session of the Peace, 1916)
Allgood v. Sloss-Sheffield Steel & Iron Co.
71 So. 724 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1916)
In re Allen
91 Ohio St. (N.S.) 315 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1915)
Shinners v. Royal Coal & Mining Co.
188 Ill. App. 335 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1914)
State ex rel. Jacobson v. Board of County Commissioners
134 P. 291 (Montana Supreme Court, 1913)
Merlo v. Johnston City & Big Muddy Coal & Mining Co.
101 N.E. 525 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1913)
State Ex Rel. West v. McCafferty
1909 OK 291 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1909)
City of Mason v. Lansing & Jackson Railway Co.
121 N.W. 466 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1909)
McDougald v. New York Life Ins.
146 F. 674 (Ninth Circuit, 1906)
City of Fargo v. Ross
92 N.W. 449 (North Dakota Supreme Court, 1903)
State Trust Co. v. Kansas City, P. & G. R.
115 F. 367 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Western Arkansas, 1902)
Hall v. Street Commissioners
59 N.E. 68 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1901)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
49 N.Y. 332, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/moore-v-mausert-ny-1872.