p. 664■ The amount found hy the referee due from the defendant was $825 88. Before the cause was referred, the defendant served upon the plaintiff an offer to allow the entry of a -’jirdg-ment for $668 53, -and costs. , . ■
Among the exceptions taken by the defendant’s counsel to the decision of the referee, was an objection “ to so much of the report as finds that the plaintiff served upon the' clerk of the city and county of New York, the notice mentioned, pursuant to the act for the security of mechanics.”
No question was raised upon the sufficiency of either the notice of lien or the verification thereof, upon.the entry of the order for joining issues, nor in the pleadings,- nor in any manner before the trial.' ' -
The-notice of appeal from the judgment specified,, among other grounds of objection, that the judgment'contravened the statute of 1851, and the acts amendatory thereof, “in all re-, spects, and particularly in respect to the lien notice.”
Benjamin T. Kissam, for the defendant, made and argued the following with other points : .
I. The notice served by the plaintiff upon the county clerk does not conform to the provisions of the “ act for the better security of mechanics and others,” passed July 11,1851, and. the act amendatory thereof, passed April 13,1855; and hence this court has not acquired jurisdiction of the proceeding.II. The first section of the act of 1851, gives a lien upon filing the notice prescribed by the sixth section, which prescribes four specific facts: . -■ 1. The amount of the claim;2. The person against whom the claim is made;3. The name of the owner of the building;, 4. The situation of the building-.by its street and number, if the number be known.. Each-and . all . of these specifications is and are vital.to the proceeding; and the notice having omitted the third one, viz., “ the name of the owner,” it is a nullity. (Beals v. The
p. 665B'nai Jeshurun, 1 E. D. Smith, 654; Sedg. on Stat. and Com. Law, 347, et seq.; Cronkright v. Thomson, 1 E. D Smith, 461.)HI. The notice is not verified in the same manner as a pleading is now required to be verified by the Code of Procedure. (Act of 1855, § 7; Code of Procedure, § 157; Requirements under the Code, Van Horn v. Montgomery, 5 Pr. Rep. 328; Waggooner v. Brown, 8 ib. 212; Quin v. Tilton, 2 Duer, 648 ; Williams v. Riell, 11 Pr. Rep. 374; T ibballs v. Selfridge, 12 ib. 64.)Edwin R. Bogardus, for the plaintiff, made and argued the following with other points :
I. The notice of lien filed and offered in evidence by the plaintiff was competent.It contained all that was required by the law.It was filed within the time required by the law.It was properly verified.See Kinkaid v. Kip, 11 Leg. Obs. 313; Radway v. Mather, 5 Sand. S. C. R. 655.II. The objection to the notice of lien comes too late, as it should have been taken advantage of on the return of the notice for an accounting and in the answer.The defendant should have objected to its sufficiency .by answer or demurrer; and he has waived the objection if tenable at all.The notice to create the lien in this case was not. verified as required by the statute.
By the act of 1855, it is provided that such notice shall be verified in the same manner as a pleading. It cannot be pretended that an affidavit that the statement of the balance is due, is a verification of all the facts stated in the notice—either of the plaintiff’s own knowledge or on information or belief. It does not verify the allegations that the contract was made,
p. 666nor that the defendants had any interest in the land, nor the location of the premises ; all of which are as necessary to the validity of the lien as the statement of the balance. This defect is one which goes to the whole claim and cannot be amended.
It is suggested by the plaintiff that the defendant should have made the objection sooner. It is not obligatory on him to do so except on the trial.
Unless the plaintiff shows a valid claim under a lien duly filed, he cannot succeed in ’an action under this statute. A void notice furnishes no foundation for a judgment. The judgment should be reversed.
Judgment reversed.