Case ID: nys_20/html/0991-03.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Ehrlich, C. J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Kruger, Respondent, v. Braender, Appellant, et al.
    
    
      (City Court of New York, General Term.
    
    October 24, 1892.)
    Action by Otto Kruger against Philip Braender, impleaded, to enforce mechanic’s lien. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendant appeals. Affirmed.
    Argued before Ehrlich, C. J., and Van Wyck and McCarthy, JJ.
    
      Bartlett, Wilson & Hayden, for appellant. Eugene Otterbourg, for respondent.
   Ehrlich, C. J.

The proofs clearly established a contract between the plaintiff and the defendant, Braender, the owner of the property, by the terms of which the plaintiff did work and furnished material in completing the building on which the lien was filed. There was no dispute as to the amount of the claim, or the fact that all the proceedings necessary to acquire a lien had been taken. The issue was, by consent, narrowed down to the inquiry whether there was a contract by which the work and material were furnished on the credit of Braender, the owner. The court below, on evidence entirely satisfactory, found that there was such a contract, and the usual judgment of foreclosure of the lien followed as of course. We find no error in ths rulings, and the judgment appealed from must be affirmed, with costs.