The New York herald., 1879-03-06
THE COURTS.
Legal Construction Of the Me-
chanios Lien Act
MOTHER AND DAUGHTER.
A Wife Suing a Liquor Dealer for Selling
Liquor to Her Husband.

Among other important decisions In appeal cases
Just handed down by the Common Pleas General
Term il ono by Judge Larremore in the case of
Charles Heckmann against John NJ Pinokney, in
which some novel questions in mechanics lien law
discussed. The suit was brought to foreclose o
mechanics lien Aled by Heckmann. sub-contractor.
claim against William J. Gessner. contractor.
Ind John Pinckney, as owner, for work done and
materials furnished for the building No. 70 Fifth
avenue, claimed to be due by Gessner to Heck
mann. Owing to the Importance of the questions
discussed and the very full exposition made Of the
Mechanics Lien act of 1875, the substance Of Judge
Larremore's opinion is given below
'It is conceded" Judge Larremore says. "thst the
plaintiffs lien of September O. 1876, not removed
by an order of the Court within the time prescribed
by section IL of the act of 1868. The first and most
important question. therefore, is the consideration of
the act of May IT, 1875. repeating statute. 1t is
entitled An act to define and limit the liens Of con-
tractors and others upon real in the city and
county of New York ana to provide for their enforce
ment.' Though not in express terms repeating any
former acts, it saves and reserves all rights ac-
cruing under them prior to July 1. 1875. From
that date it would appear to have been the
intention of the Legislature that the act OF May H.
the tights of enors within the CITY and county Of
New York. noticeable feature Of the act is that
the validity of the lien is made to depend upon the
time of the filing of the lien, without regard to the
fact of an amount then actually due the contractors
by the owner. Thus the lien attaches when the lia-
bility exists subject to the contingencies provided
for between tho owners and contractors BY section
of the act OF 1875 subcontractots must file their
claims within thirty days after the same have nc
crued. If no amount was then due, but subsequently
became due to the contractors. is 1t fair Inference
that the Legislature intended to invaldate all such
section IL Of the act Of 1853 the purpose Of
giving constructive notice of the continuance OF the
lien This object Is effected, under section of the
oct OF 1876, by the commencement of IN action to
forecose tho lien filing notice of lis pendens and
scribcd We assent to the general proposition that
o repeal Of statutes by implication Is not favored
that when both statutes can stand there Is
peal. the subsequent statute only operating rs re-
peal to the extent that the two repugnant. But
although the subsequent statute be not repugnant
in all It's provisions to the prior yet when it. is
manifest that the recent act clearly intended to
prescribe the only rule in cases for which 1t pro-
vides it repeals the earliest act" Judge Lar
remore then goes on to say that careful
closes the fact that 1t affords complete remedy for
the very class OF embraced within tho act Of
1863. and provides q remedy for the same cases,
aud in more detailed and extensive manner than
the act OF 1868 the inference Is fair that it the
intention OF the Legislature to repeal the statute last
mentioned. The act of 1873 says to the plaintiff.
'sTulhl my requirements and your lien shall he
tinued." He does 80, follows the latest authority
and Is met by exaction of former statute which
the he followed utterly ignored. consistent
should be held to be repeating act In regard to
the other exceptions raised by the appeal Judge Lar
remore holds that no such gross error or mistake
appears to have been committed to justify inter-
ference appeal. and he therefore arms the judg-
ment- Chief Justice Daily writes concurring
opiniOn.