Watson v. S. F. Excavating Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Watson v. S. F. Excavating Co.

240 A.D. 718

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

DecidedJune 15, 1933

StatusPublished

This text of 240 A.D. 718 (Watson v. S. F. Excavating Co.) 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

Watson v. S. F. Excavating Co., 240 A.D. 718 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1933).

Pincite

Opinion

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, in the exercise of discretion. It appears that the funds in the hands of the comptroller of the city of Yonkers will be insufficient to pay in full the liens already filed and the subject of this action, and that the claim on the judgment of the applicant against the contractor is admittedly subordinate to the liens. The only apparent effect of bringing in the applicant as a party would be to delay the parties in obtaining their respective remedies. If there is a surplus, the applicant will be protected in its rights under its third-party order. We cannot assume that invalid liens will be allowed, or that the lienors will receive amounts in excess of their just claims — there being no proper proof on the subject of the invalidity or of exaggerated claims. Lazansky, P. J., Young, Scudder, Tompkins and Davis, JJ., concur.

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

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, in the exercise of discretion. It appears that the funds in the hands of the comptroller of the city of Yonkers will be insufficient to pay in full the liens already filed and the subject of this action, and that the claim on the judgment of the applicant against the contractor is admittedly subordinate to the liens. The only apparent effect of bringing in the applicant as a party would be to delay the parties in obtaining their respective remedies. If there is a surplus, the applicant will be protected in its rights under its third-party order. We cannot assume that invalid liens will be allowed, or that the lienors will receive amounts in excess of their just claims — there being no proper proof on the subject of the invalidity or of exaggerated claims. Lazansky, P. J., Young, Scudder, Tompkins and Davis, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

240 A.D. 718, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/watson-v-s-f-excavating-co-nyappdiv-1933.