From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Reilly v. Poerschke

City Court of New York — General Term
Nov 1, 1895
14 Misc. 466 (N.Y. Misc. 1895)

Opinion

November, 1895.

Fromme Brothers, for appellants.

F. Schaeffler, for respondent.


The complaint contains, we think, all the necessary allegations. Morton v. Tucker, 145 N.Y. 244.

It was not necessary to obtain leave of the court to bring an action against the sureties on the bond. It took the place of the liened property, and only the same proceedings were necessary to prosecute the bond as were required to foreclose the lien. Under the complaint the plaintiff was entitled to a judgment of foreclosure; that being so, he had the right to a judgment against the sureties on the bond.

The judgment is affirmed, with costs.

VAN WYCK, Ch. J., and McCARTHY, J., concur.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.


Summaries of

Reilly v. Poerschke

City Court of New York — General Term
Nov 1, 1895
14 Misc. 466 (N.Y. Misc. 1895)
Case details for

Reilly v. Poerschke

Case Details

Full title:MICHAEL REILLY, Respondent, v . EDWARD R. POERSCHKE et al., Appellants

Court:City Court of New York — General Term

Date published: Nov 1, 1895

Citations

14 Misc. 466 (N.Y. Misc. 1895)
35 N.Y.S. 1023

Citing Cases

Schultz v. Teichman Engineering Const. Co.

The courts in this state have repeatedly held that in an action to foreclose a mechanic's lien which has been…