Nunan v. Doyle

This is an appeal from a judgment in favor of the plaintiffs The action was brought to foreclose a mechanic’s lien. The amount claimed to be due was $1,614, and was for a balance upon a contract of $14,680, and for extra work. The recovery was for $1,063.60. The appellant claims that-the lien was invalid, and seems to rely greatly upon a finding of fact which is, in effect, that the work covered by the contracts was not yet completed at-the time of the trial. That a substantial completion was not referred to in this finding is evidenced by the fourth finding, which reads: “That before-the 14th day of July, 1890, plaintiff had substantially completed the plastering work required to be done. * * *” The case shows that the referee found that plaintiff had substantially performed the contract and work for-which he filed the lien. Allowance was made for the lack of full performance. Hollister v. Mott, (Sup.) 10 N. Y. Supp. 409 , is satisfactory authority that a. recovery ought not to be defeated upon the ground that there was not full performance by the plaintiff. Substantial performance will suffice. I have-examined the exceptions which appear in the case, and find no error which, warrants a reversal. The judgment should be affirmed, with costs and disbursements. All concur.