New-York tribune., 1867-04-01

LIABILITY or OWNERS UNDER THE IIEE LAW
s. W. Chapnsa AleEandef 7. evsr, and others
This action is for the foreclosure OF mechanic.
lien against tho New York Theoter for
agreement In writing, dated Nov. SO 1865; with a. T.
Stewart which sSsep'ent % mt s ne ~ @ nss M
Davis TO Stewart on the execution and delivery hereof
Davis the building known AZ tho ate Church OF tho
sah. situated on broadway, opposite the hew-fork
ing Dec TO- 1865 and ending on Dec a. 1855 Posses
said promises shall however he given 10 DAVIS on
thereon subject " the approval OF said Stewart or his
agent shall not depreoate the valne OF said building
materaa e go FAR now on the Il being under
stood and agreed that the changes IN the
the purposes Of frstoass theatcr. similar TO hibios
Theater.
upon the terms and conditions aforosdd. 10 adapt II TO
the purposes aforesaid at his own cost and expense and
said bniiiing and premises to ssid stewart with all the
alterations additions and improvements made thereon
TRS aeSSmen 4S Sen syes Davis tho privilege
expiration Of said term and surrender IA Aforesaid Of
renting the theater TO May then next for The sum OF
o Tor etey YER scon .wG ere reerpsd 70 to Hon Bos
worth sole referee 10 hear, try, ana dotormne tho
The plaintiffs claim that under this agreement che essss
mer6%Dios in other words fhat conraotors with him
n M virtue Of II n or Tsss s sss
The defendants resisted this view ST..
ExJudgc Boswortb, after stating Che case ana uscLs'-
ing Il in its general bearing. says:
This case IL understand IT, presents The naked ques-
tlOn whether lessee. with the privilege OF MAXIM
atons at his cost and oxpense with view TO the
better adaptation OF tho premises % tho business for
which thev rented IA tho agent Of Che lessor IN max
ing such alterations that lien for tho agrood price
therefor the cost thereof can be impo.od upon the
leSsor's interest In the premises thus disposed or
my view of the statute. this question must Dc an
swered fN the negative. In this Wow tho complaint
should be d,mSd with cost. 20 the defendant stewart
There preense that the plaintiffs wore mised by
Mr. Stewart or by acting for him. as TO tho ea
tona existing between him and Mr Davis. or That plain
tffs did not understand IL when they furnished tho
naterals As understand their position. they oonsidcr
II proper undOr tho advice Of counsel aud for their inter
e,i 10 tcst the question OF Mr. Sewas liability owner
under the statute first cited aud II unsuccessful they
should pay the costs which they thereby mako 1t ncces
sary for Mr. Stewart 60 incur,
Iii useless 10 cite decsons 20 AID possible future or
animation OF this by the learned Court which has
expOunded all the statutes respect 70 mecbaics liens
retipg 20 the City and County OF HewYork 30 far ss
any OF these statutes were similar 10 the present
one In respect the main question involved In this
the decisions containing them call for the oonsTuctOp
which have given TO tho present one.
r. g. Guernsey for plaintiffs: H. IL Rce Tor deieh1Aht
bPECIAL TBRh.-BefOre justice CAhDoIo'
DECISIONS,
Sigler agt Sgler.-Report OF referee confirmed and
Gentl agt Msrcon.-The order proposed by plsintffs
attorney right except that tho receiver should be a
ponted now tho parties do not agree on the nsine OF
the receiver, will insert one I'm the order.