The Jersey City news. (Jersey City [N.J.]) 1889-1906, 1898-11-22
MECHANICS LIEN LAW.
Interesting Point Today Set
tied by Vice Chancellor
Pitney.
LOCAL MATERIAL MEN, INVOLVED
Court Of Errors Reversal of
the Vice Chancellor's
Decision Sharply
Criticized.
LOCAL MATERIAL MEN, INVOLVED

nice point in connection with the Me-
chanics' Lien Law of this State was set
tied today by yice-Chancellor Pitney, and
it is of great Importance to all builders,
material men, contractors, laborers ard
those interested in building and buiidiag
and loan Institutions. The Vice GhanceI-
lor had before him the case Of Mrs. Sarah
c. Smith vs.. the Barnes Manufacturing
Company, Dodge, Bliss & Co, Jacob iiE-
gle and Charles Thompson, in which eDere
cropped up the decision delivered by the
Court of Errors and Appeals at its last
session in the case of Slingerland VS..
Binns, which decision cverruled Mr..
Pitney The opinion of the Appellate
Court held that where workmen and ma
terial men, creditors of the builder, who
served notices upon the owner in accord
ance with the statute, thereby secufad
with respect to any monies thereafter
growing due upon the contract according
to its terms, the right to payment in pref
erence to those to whom the contractor
had assigned such monies before the no.
tees were served. no matter were It al or
der upon the owner or a formal assign
ment by the contractor.
In the case of yesterday appeared Law
yer Henry j. Melosh for Mrs. Smith, ex-
Assistant Prosecutor VIM. NJ. Iklink for
the Baines Company, Lawyer James F.
Fielder, of the firm Of Brinkerhoff &
Fielder, for Dodge, Bliss Co.. and ex-
Judge Puster for Messrs. Ringle &
Thompson.
From the statement of counsel it ap-
peaTed that Mrs. Smith, in October last,
made a contract viii a builder named A.
A. Anderson TO construct a house on the
corner of Mandeville avenue and the
Boulevard Anderson applied to the
Barnes Manufacturing Company for.
sashes, doors and blinds to be used on the
house That company refused to furnish
the materials until Mrs. Smith secured
them by giving an agreement that she
would pay the Barnes Company's bill OF
$797. This agreement was signed by Mrs.
Smith before a stick of materials was
furnished.
For some reason, Mrs. Smith, instead
of keeping to the terms of that agree
ment, paid ST 1893, or three payments OF The
four, under the contract for the house.
This left balance Of 1892. Then Mrs.
Smith discovered that Builder Anderson
owed money to materialmen and laborers.
to a very considerable extent Ander-
sons unpaid bills amounted in fact, TO
more than the money in her hands to be
paid on the contract. These creditors,
learning of this state of affairs promptly
filed notices of their bills, with Mrs.
Smith. OF these notices filed, the Dodge
& Bliss Company's for lumber supplied,
amounting to $500 was the first.
Now the agreement between Mrs. Smith
and the Barnes Company was filed No
vember II, 1897, while the notice Of Dodge,
Bliss Company, in conformity with the
statute. was filed nearly fouT months
later March, 1898, and the remaining no.
tices a week after the Dodge & Bliss no.
tice
In arguing the case for the Dodge-Bliss
Co, Lawyer James F. Fielder yesterday
contended that the agreement of Mrs.
Smith with the Barnes Manufacturing
Company was nothing more than an or
der and clearly came within the scope OF
the Court of Errors opinion in the Slim
eerland-Binns case That being SO the
claims of his clients who had served
notices had priority and then if there was
anything left the Barnes Company should
be paid.
On the other hand Lawyer William NJ.
that the balance of $3.50 due to his clients
should be paid first, because it was
separate agreement by the owner with
the material men" Barnes Company,
and that under the contract she had a
right to furnish materials irrespective
of the contractor and his clients claim
was prior to that of anyone else.
Vice Chancellor Pitney in delivering his
opinion criticized the Court of Errors
views when they were unkind enough to
reverse him. He said in fact the opinion
meant that ii was a case of claims against
owners of buildings, first come, flrsT
served. and there was no equity in 1t al
ALL The man who got his Dill IN hrst.
the lumherman because he was the be-
ginner had priority over the painter, who
came last and generally got left. coming
to the case before him the Vice Clan-
cellor said that the agreement OF MRS.
Smith with the Barnes Company was not
an order understood by the trade and
Mrs. Smith had a right to take cut OF t1e
amount of money held by her for the
paymeflt of the Barnes Company's claim
of s450 He further ordered that she
should pay $50 into court.
After the Barnes Companys claim IS
settled then Dodge, Bliss Co. Will get
a small amount and the others viii be
simply left in the cold with all sorts OF
pleasant and charitable feelings towards
the contractor.
t6ny EItTE cvrtFRS, pAil