Majority
Headnote
L. being engaged in erecting a church edifice for the defendant, contracted with the plaintiff for the cut freestone required for such edifice, the same to be paid for on delivery. A quantity of stone was accordingly delivered by the plaintiff, and paid for on delivery. L. then agreed with the plaintiff to pay the further sum of $1500 for the stone required to complete the building, by giving the plaintiff an order upon the. defendant for that amount. Such stone being delivered, the plaintiff received a certificate from the architects, stating that L. was entitled to $1500, on his contract, and an order from L. for the payment of that sum. Such order being presented to the treasurer of the defendant, he neither paid nor accepted the same, nor promised to pay it, but assented to the same as a transaction between L, and the plaintiff, and postponed the same to a time when certain installments should become due to L. under his contract, and when the corporation should be in funds.The findings of the referee were consistent with the evidence, and show a right of action against the defendants, as soon as such amount became payable. When the order was presented to the treasurer, he did not accept or refuse, but postponed the matter to a future day,, when he would tell them as to the time of payment. On the order and certificate, the stone' was delivered, and the same was used by the defendants; and without such order no delivery would have been made, the same being done to protect the church. This course of dealing' was similar to what had existed previously between Lyon and the defendants, although the plaintiff had no knowledge of previous payments made on such certificates. Under this state of facts, we think the same may be considered as an equitable assignment of the amount, assented to by the agent of the
[First Department, General Term, at New York,
January 1, 1872.
There is nothing in the assignment which violated the provision in the lien law which forbids a transfer of the contractor’s interest in the contract. This is not such an assignment. It does, not transfer the contract, or an interest in it, but a payment coming due under it. Even if it did, that objection only applies to a contract between parties having liens, and not between a creditor and thé owner.
We see no reason to interfere with the findings of the referee.
Judgment affirmed.
Ingraham, P. J,, and Cardozo and Geo.