Case Name: FITZPATRICK v. DEVLIN et al.
Court: New York Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1913-07-14
Citations: 142 N.Y.S. 689
Docket Number: 
Parties: FITZPATRICK v. DEVLIN et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 142
Pages: 689–690

Head Matter:
FITZPATRICK v. DEVLIN et al.
(Supreme Court, Special Term, New York County.
July 14, 1913.)
Mechanics’ Liens (§ 227 )—Bond to Discharge Lien—Liability on Bond. Where a contractor on a public improvement gave a bond to discharge a mechanic’s lien conditioned for the payment of any judgment recovered by plaintiff against the contractor in any action or proceeding to enforce the alleged lien filed by plaintiff against moneys due or to grow due to the contractor, the surety on the bond was not liable for the amount of a personal judgment subsequently recovered against the contractor on plaintiff’s failure to establish a valid lien.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Mechanics’ Liens, Cent. Dig. § 410; Dec. Dig. § 227.*]
Action by Richard Fitzpatrick against John H. Devlin and another. Judgment for plaintiff against the defendant Devlin, and judgment for the defendant the Fidelity & Deposit Company of Maryland.
At the time when the alleged lien was filed, there was no fund due the contractor from the city under the contract and the defendant Fidelity & Deposit Company of Maryland therefore claims that the alleged lien was not a valid one.
Michael J. Scanlan, of New York City, for plaintiff.
O’Brien, Boardman & Platt, of New York City (Edward L. Stevens, of New York City, of counsel), for defendant Eidelity & Deposit Co. of Maryland.
Sackett, Chapman & Stevens (Edward L. Stevens, of New York City, of counsel), for defendants other than the City of New York and the Fidelity & Deposit Co. of Maryland.
For other cases see same topic & § number in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, & Rep’r Indexes

Opinion:
GIEGERICH, J.
The action is brought to foreclose a lien under a contract for a public improvement, and it is conceded that the plaintiff is entitled to judgment against the defendant Devlin as contractor.
The question is whether the defendant the Fidelity & Deposit Company of Maryland is likewise liable upon its undertaking given to discharge the lien, which undertaking was conditioned for the payment of any judgment recovered by the plaintiff against the said Devlin "in any action or proceeding to enforce the alleged lien filed by the said plaintiff against the moneys due or to grow due to the said John H. Devlin."
The plaintiff relies upon the decision of the- Appellate Division of this department in Hawkins v. Mapes-Reeve Const. Co., 82 App. Div. 72, 81 N. Y. Supp. 794. A reference to the opinion in that' case will show, however, that the undertaking there was conditioned for the payment of any judgment recovered "upon the claim or demand specified in the notice of lien." Manifestly the two conditions are quite different. The only case I have been able to find that is directly in point is Casey v. Connors Bros. Const. Co., 53 Misc. Rep. 101, 103 N. Y. Supp. 1103, in which Judge Andrews held that, to establish liability upon a bond like the present one, there must be allegation and proof that the lien discharged by virtue of the undertaking was a valid lien, and that the mere recovery of a money judgment against the contractor under the provisions of section 3412 of the Code of Civil. Procedure is not enough. The point seems never to have been squarely before the Court of Appeals for its decision, but its view has been clearly expressed, especially in Berger Mfg. Co. v. City of N. Y., 206 N. Y. 24, at page 30, 99 N. E. 153, at page 154, where it was said that the necessity of enforcing the right to a lien, even after an undertaking is given, is clearly shown by the condition which the statute prescribes for such undertaking, viz. "the payment of any judgment which may be recovered in an action to enforce the lien," and that the undertaking does not change the relation and the rights of the parties other than to substitute its provisions for the fund remaining due or to become due from the municipality to the contractor. The court further observed (206 N. Y. at page 31, 99 N. E. 153) that where an undertaking is given-its condition determines the obligation of the parties, and that a valid lien on the primary fund must be established to require payment pursuant to the terms of the undertaking.
My conclusion is, therefore, that the plaintiff is not entitled to judgment against the surety. Submit requests for findings, with proof of service.