Siegel v. Ehrshowsky

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Siegel v. Ehrshowsky

46 Misc. 605, 92 N.Y.S. 733

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedMarch 15, 1905

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 46 Misc. 605 (Siegel v. Ehrshowsky) 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

Siegel v. Ehrshowsky, 46 Misc. 605, 92 N.Y.S. 733 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1905).

Pincite

Opinion

O’Gorman, J.

The plaintiff, a subcontractor, brings suit to foreclose a mechanic’s lien. The performance of plaintiff’s work was not seriously disputed, and the conclusion of the trial justice that there was an amount due from the defendant to the principal contractor sufficient to cover plaintiff’s claim is amply supported by the evidence. The judgment, however, must be -reversed for a defect in the notice of lien and for failure of necessary averments in the complaint. The mechanic’s lien stated that “ the agreed price or value thereof is two hundred and fifty dollars.” It has been frequently held that a statement "in the disjunctive excludes both of the matters thereby sought to be affirmed, and is not in compliance with the law. In Villaume v. Kirchner, 85 N. Y. Supp. 377, this court held a lien defective because of the alternative statement of “ the agreed price or value.” The validity of this lien cannot therefore be upheld, and a personal judgment cannot be awarded against the owner, as it is not alleged or claimed that a contractual relation existed between him and the lienor. The omission to state in the complaint that any sum was actually due to the original contractor was fatal, apart from the defect in the lien, and no attempt was made upon the trial to amend. Ball & Wood Co. v. Clark, 31 App. Div. 356.

Scott and Blanchard, JJ., concur.

Judgment reversed and new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide event.

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

O’Gorman, J.

The plaintiff, a subcontractor, brings suit to foreclose a mechanic’s lien. The performance of plaintiff’s work was not seriously disputed, and the conclusion of the trial justice that there was an amount due from the defendant to the principal contractor sufficient to cover plaintiff’s claim is amply supported by the evidence. The judgment, however, must be -reversed for a defect in the notice of lien and for failure of necessary averments in the complaint. The mechanic’s lien stated that “ the agreed price or value thereof is two hundred and fifty dollars.” It has been frequently held that a statement "in the disjunctive excludes both of the matters thereby sought to be affirmed, and is not in compliance with the law. In Villaume v. Kirchner, 85 N. Y. Supp. 377, this court held a lien defective because of the alternative statement of “ the agreed price or value.” The validity of this lien cannot therefore be upheld, and a personal judgment cannot be awarded against the owner, as it is not alleged or claimed that a contractual relation existed between him and the lienor. The omission to state in the complaint that any sum was actually due to the original contractor was fatal, apart from the defect in the lien, and no attempt was made upon the trial to amend. Ball & Wood Co. v. Clark, 31 App. Div. 356.

Scott and Blanchard, JJ., concur.

Judgment reversed and new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide event.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

46 Misc. 605, 92 N.Y.S. 733, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/siegel-v-ehrshowsky-nyappterm-1905.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack