Case ID: nys_36/html/1111-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "FITZSIMONS, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

(14 Misc. Rep. 466.)
    REILLY v. POERSCHKE et al.
    (City Court of New York,
    General Term.
    November 23, 1895.)
    Mechanics’ Liens—Action on Bond—Leave op Court.
    Leave of court need not be obtained to sue the sureties on a contractor's bond.
    Appeal from trial term.
    Action by Michael Beilly against Edward B. Poerschke and others on a contractor’s bond. There was a judgment in favor of plaintiff, and defendants appeal.
    Affirmed.
    Argued before VAN WYCIC, C. J., and FITZSIMONS and McCABTHY, JJ.
    Fromme Bros., for appellants.
    F. Schaeffler, for respondent.
   FITZSIMONS, J.

The complaint contains, we think, all the neces sary allegations. Morton v. Tucker, 145 N. Y. 244, 40 N. E. 3.

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. All concur.