The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1855-08-04
Court Of Common Pleas General Term.
IMronTAs7 LfrN LAW DECISION.

Ar0. Ia. n Quimty and Son fDoass J. SL,1H
and ohe,s.-Ths vas AN aston brought 70 snforce
pl,intIns, re bno~n lightning rod manufacturers ~
tbs city, were employed Last fall BY nloan L.rSsu to
ouits ..ses. n. buSalng. vsIs =. ,S.i i'm. n pr,
OF ton Before they couipst.d, however,
sloan Isggsi. failed snd nads an Alignment u their
property 10 Wright Purdy, who Aso made defend
ants A. VI. qumby 4 son not set,ns their fnonsy,
hbd notice Of len and proceeded 10 the usual msnnsr
In the enforcement 81 their eiai Thsr notes ~ lion
wa hsi after the asss nt va. sreen,. bat before
Il REGARDED Tbs plaintiffs obtained iusamsni In
the Marine Court md ihs defendants spp@alsi Ths ops
ion at the Court trndersi substanty a. folo By
woobRu1, J.-Tbs question chiefly dlscu'ssi IN thls
case ia whether the planta had any hsa 70 fefsel,.s
ami this question in it, ,7peAton % the present eas
divides itseif into tvo questions
l. Wbe'bsr the plaintiffs bad any lien spon vhish
th could proceed In the Marine Court, to compel
the application Of the property bound tbsrsby 70 y.
payment,
IN, bad lien, a. unS0rs for the purchass aaaasy,
Wright Purdy, grantees undsr the deed 70 thsm and
which might have ben enforced IN Court h.rlnx
general equity Jurisdiction and compliant h~i for
the purpose OF establishing such an sqaits bio lien
Iirst, then. did the plaintiffs sssbnsh Leo -hies
could be- foreeIossd 10 the Marine C~artf feel
stra ned 70 answer this question Ia the n~rauv. That
court hA. Jurisdiction 20 enforce sluitass LEM
has 70 equiJ Jurisdiction ,ueh !. M. ,sry sa,a,.
Iurisd.cuon 10 specific cases. and ws have held AM ns
stn ~ opIs0o ibs, ,hs clothed that court With All thu
stsiut. sio fan .css and on fa.tssars Of TIE leo
10 ore. the premise. 10 - applied 10 ~. s4nsfseoa o.
The lea. Bat The plaintiff. IN order 70 obtsin such
gdgDs nt at ss,Ab alb lien snser Tho status fsrt
10 that len sst tha, oaiy vhsh b. snfore- ia thu,
court We have % ofsn srpr.sei oar ,is-s ~ the
ssptsl rtq uisss u the sasnts len hs, u IL
ssry % enlarge upon them here no sts,a,s gives ID.
Bast>riAl man lien upon hlss The nouss 18th tss
Cosn;y Clsrs. l. then, sni not gnt thss the Lien
acquired. Apats make this act The vsry erss,os o. The
len ~ terms that should b. 20 sp~eihc TIA, doubt
uouh -rD, on n subject The eject Of sinx sash soas
stAisd 20 ~ that The claimant sbaI have leo upon
us right t,- and nsres .. such ovnsr ersiisr tho
tnue u such hhns-sS the Isyisls,ats not oniy In
tspasa thst The statute hen sod no, only tass ss<
from that tine, but AIso 20 srslsss ihs hlrs u the
pa3'ys having any syAi sqptsbls len t~for. zach
nirv. Af~r eOunsui4nx skon the sTll.s,s n hs a.
70 ,hoS that he ia.sr~f hsf bAss ~ he hfn' u s
arg ~ ths lee, And discussssG rfthops 5s1yniHinr
u. question rbs'hsr he tlAnfla nisst sos bsrss
equitable Hso which eDan ~ snfsro~i uton proper
compliant IN Court ~ iqui,y, hs osc~ eaatlsess -
felbvs In ny orln<n the ssgnssi mast - revsrst.
might perhaps have bssn ssovas - say ihai " ihs
plaintiffs claim Ian unasr ne ss ais be has isis& "
gam bsa aeoovt sf % TIA ptetsseas ssa be siA
= gpos 81 sitabls Tro, ss sr'isx slsp~s1sss;y of
the s,Atsa On aay sssh srstD hs kas no. s<se,~s So
curt .s mode 81 rroess>lns In vhish ssth eAa
Gao 10 snfotee1 i1Egssut rsrsrsse.