Case ID: ad_154/html/0900-04.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Eddy Glickman Building, Concreting and Improvement Company, Appellant, v. Gainsborough Construction Company, Defendant, Impleaded with Beecher Realty and Construction Company, Respondent, and Another, Defendant.
    Judgment of the County Court of Kings county reversed and new trial Ordered, costs to abide the final award of costs, upon questions of fact as well as of law. There is evidence from which the court might find that some work was doné Tinder the original contract as late as the 15th of December, 1909, and, therefore, the fourth finding of fact is erroneous. The eleventh finding of fact although more strictly a conclusion of law, is erroneous in that it finds that the notice of hen does not state the business address nor the principal place of business of the lienor. •
   Burr, Thomas, Woodward and Rich, JJ., concurred; Hirsehberg, J., dissented.