Hyperlawhypertext legal databasebeta New Jersey Steel & Iron Co. v. Robinson 178 N.Y. 632

← Cases

New Jersey Steel & Iron Co. v. Robinson

178 N.Y. 632 Court N.Y. Decision date 1904-05-31 English

Delivered by Werner, J.

Contents

Majority

p. 632
The New Jersey Steel and Iron Company, Appellant and Respondent, v. Andrew J. Robinson, Defendant, Charles N. Talbot, as Assignee, et al., Respondents and Appellants, Paul Pfotenhauer et al., Appellants, and Francis S. Kinney et al., Respondents.

Headnote

New Jersey Steel & Iron Go. v. Robinson, 74 App. Div. 481 , reversed.
New Jersey Steel & Iron Go. v. Robinson, 85 App. Div. 512 , affirmed.
New Jersey Steel & Iron Go. v. Robinson, 92 App. Div. 436 , affirmed.
(Argued May 16, 1904;
decided May 31, 1904.)
Cross-appeals from three several judgments of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial
p. 633
department, entered January 5, 1903, August 13, 1903, and April 8, 1904, which modified and affirmed as modified judgments entered upon the report of a referee in an action to foreclose a mechanic’s lien.
Ilenry B. Olosson for plaintiff, appellant and respondent.
Frederick H Mom, for Paul Pfotenhauer et ah, defendants, appellants.
Richard M. Martin for Albert S. Richey et ah, defendants, appellants.
Philo P. Safford for Columbia Fire Proofing Company, defendant, appellant.
Geoi'ge B. Dunn for Masons’ Supplies Company, defendant, appellant.
Wm. D. Peck for Clarence L. Smith, defendant, appellant.
Henry de Forest Baldwin and Francis Woodbridge for Charles N. Talbot, as assignee, defendant, respondent and appellant.
John M. Bowers, J. Orlando Harrison and Edgar Whit-lock for Barr, Thaw & Fraser et al., defendants, appellants.
John M. Bowers and William H. Van Benschoten for Francis S. Kinney, defendant, respondent.
Edward J. Patterson for Owen R. Mason, defendant, respondent.

We shall content ourselves with a brief statement of our conclusions herein, since it would be unprofitable to do more.

1. Upon the appeal of the plaintiff and the other lienors from the order of the Appellate Division reversing so much of the judgment entered upon the report of the referee as adjudged that the liens were prior and paramount to the claim of Talbot as assignee of Robinson, we reverse the order of the Appellate Division and affirm the judgment entered upon the referee’s report, with the costs and allowances therein specified

p. 634
and with costs of this appeal payable out of the fund. (Kane Co. v. Kinney, 174 N. Y. 69 .)

2. Upon the appeal of the defendants Barr, Thaw and Fraser, and the American National Exchange Bank, from the order of the Appellate Division, reversing so much of the judgment entered upon the referee’s report as adjudged the lien of Barr, Thaw and Fraser, and the claim thereunder of the American National Exchange Bank, valid as against the lien of the plaintiff, we affirm the order of the Appellate Division, with costs to the plaintiff respondent payable out of the fund. (Bradley & Currier Co. v. Pacheteau, 175 N. Y. 492 .)

3. Upon the appeal of the plaintiff from the order of the Appellate Division modifying the judgment entered upon the referee’s report as to the amount earned and unpaid upon Robinson’s contract at the time of filing the liens herein, and as to the amount of interest payable thereon, we affirm the order of the Appellate Division, with costs to the respondent Kinney payable out of the fund.

Parker, Oh. J., Gray, O’Brien, Martin and Cullen, JJ., concur; Haight, J., absent.

Judgment accordingly.

Cases cited