Case ID: misc_14/html/0466-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Fitzsimohs, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Michael Reilly, Respondent, v. Edward R. Poerschke et al., Appellants.
    (City Court of New York
    General Term,
    November, 1895.)
    It is not necessary to obtain leave of court to bring an action on a bond given to discharge a mechanic’s lien.
    Appeal from judgment in favor of the plaintiffs.
    
      Fromme Brothers, for appellants.
    
      F. Schaeffler, for respondent.
   Fitzsimohs, J.

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.

Yah Wyck, Ch. J., and McCarthy, J., concur.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.