From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hurley v. Pittsburgh Plate Glass Company

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 1, 1917
178 App. Div. 927 (N.Y. App. Div. 1917)

Opinion

May, 1917.


Judgment reversed, and upon new findings by this court, plaintiff decreed to recover for value of his collateral applied by defendant after it had satisfied its mechanic's lien. Having filed a lien for $1,479.90, such lien became security for this debt, although the debtor had then become bankrupt and the plaintiff as guarantor, in ignorance of this lien, had afterwards advanced other collateral. In this suit defendant had the burden of justifying a discharge of its lien for only $656.90, since this rendered valueless the lien to which plaintiff had a right to be subrogated. ( Guild v. Butler, 127 Mass. 386, 390.) Under familiar equitable principles, a surety can recover back collections from his property after he has learned that the creditor's acts have discharged his liability. ( Chester v. Kingston Bank, 17 Barb. 271; 16 N.Y. 336.) Plaintiff, therefore, is entitled to repayment of the $1,022.68 collected from his assigned security, with interest and costs in both courts. Jenks, P.J., Thomas, Mills, Rich and Putnam, JJ., concurred. Order to be settled with findings, on notice before Mr. Justice Putnam.


Summaries of

Hurley v. Pittsburgh Plate Glass Company

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 1, 1917
178 App. Div. 927 (N.Y. App. Div. 1917)
Case details for

Hurley v. Pittsburgh Plate Glass Company

Case Details

Full title:WILLIAM S. HURLEY, Appellant, v. PITTSBURGH PLATE GLASS COMPANY, Respondent

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: May 1, 1917

Citations

178 App. Div. 927 (N.Y. App. Div. 1917)

Citing Cases

Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. LFO Construction Corp.

However, in finding a lack of merit to the claim, IAS erroneously applied a summary judgment standard rather…