From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Prime v. Hughes

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Jun 30, 1916
174 App. Div. 406 (N.Y. App. Div. 1916)

Opinion

June 30, 1916.

S.E. Maders, for the appellant.

Fred M. La Duke, for the respondents.


Judgment unanimously affirmed, with costs, on the opinion of BORST, J., at Trial Term.

The following is the opinion of Mr. Justice BORST:


The evidence sustains plaintiffs' contention that the work and materials, the value of which they seek to recover in this action, were furnished by authority from defendant owner's duly authorized agent and were of the value claimed. She has had the benefit of this work and these materials and should pay therefor. Her counsel urges, however, that under the pleadings and proof in this action, plaintiffs cannot have a recovery.

The complaint is insufficient for a foreclosure of the liens in that it does not state whether any other action has been brought to recover any part of the lien debt. (Lien Law [Consol. Laws, chap. 33; Laws of 1909, chap. 38], § 43; Code Civ. Proc. § 1629; Schwartz v. Klar, 144 App. Div. 37.) It is not necessary, therefore, to consider the other objections raised against plaintiffs' right to have a foreclosure of their mechanics' liens in this action.

The right to foreclose the liens failing, plaintiffs, nevertheless, are entitled to personal judgment. The allegations of the complaint in each cause of action are sufficient for such judgment. ( Abbott v. Easton, 195 N.Y. 372; Bradley Currier Co. v. Pacheteau, 175 id. 492; McDonald v. Mayor, etc., 113 App. Div. 625, 630.) The suggestion made by defendant's counsel, that no demand being made for a personal judgment none could be granted, is without force.

Under our system of pleading the plaintiffs are entitled to any relief, irrespective of the prayer for judgment. ( Parker v. Pullman Co., 36 App. Div. 208, 218.) Further, the Lien Law (§ 54) provides that if the lienor shall fail for any reason to establish a valid lien in an action under the provisions of that law, he may recover judgment therein for such sums as are due him or which he might recover in an action on contract against any party to the action. Clearly this section is authority for a personal judgment where sufficient facts are alleged in the complaint for that purpose as in this case and the proof establishes the necessary facts for such judgment.

A proposed decision may be prepared in accordance with these suggestions.


Summaries of

Prime v. Hughes

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Jun 30, 1916
174 App. Div. 406 (N.Y. App. Div. 1916)
Case details for

Prime v. Hughes

Case Details

Full title:PETER W. PRIME and Others, as Administrators, etc., of HENRY M. PRIME…

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

Date published: Jun 30, 1916

Citations

174 App. Div. 406 (N.Y. App. Div. 1916)
159 N.Y.S. 1041

Citing Cases

Nelson v. Schrank

CARSWELL, J. (dissenting in part). I concur for reversal insofar as concerns the holding that the lien is…

Brigham v. Duany

( Toop v. Smith, 181 N.Y. 283; Flaum v. Picarreto, 226 id. 468.) Plaintiffs were entitled to personal…