Case Name: Williamsburg Iron and Wire Works, Incorporated, Respondent, v. John F. Kuhn et al., Appellants, Impleaded with Others
Court: New York Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1917-03-06
Citations: 220 N.Y. 647
Docket Number: 
Parties: Williamsburg Iron and Wire Works, Incorporated, Respondent, v. John F. Kuhn et al., Appellants, Impleaded with Others.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Reports
Volume: 220
Pages: 647–648

Head Matter:
Williamsburg Iron and Wire Works, Incorporated, Respondent, v. John F. Kuhn et al., Appellants, Impleaded with Others.
Williamsburg Iron & Wire Works v. Kuhn, 167 App. Div. 939, affirmed.
(Argued February 8, 1917;
decided March 6, 1917.)
Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered March 27, 1915, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a decision of the court on trial at Special Term in an action to foreclose a mechanic’s lien filed against moneys in the hands of the comptroller of the city of New York due to the defendant Kuhn. The answer specifically denied performance of any extra work or that an agreement was made to pay for any extra work, denied all the other material allegations of the complaint except the filing and bonding of the lien, and sets up a counterclaim for the cost of completion of the work under the contract between the plaintiff and the defendant Kuhn in the sum of $940. The reply to the answer of the defendant Kuhn interposed a general denial of the allegation of the answer, and alleged that the work of the plaintiff, under its subcontract with the defendant Kuhn, was protracted beyond the sixty working days specified in the contract, by the interference of defendant Kuhn and failure of said Kuhn to complete his (Kuhn’s) work.
A. J. Rose, L. Laflin Kellogg and Asa B. Kellogg for appellants.
Gustavns A. Rogers and Saul E. Rogers for respondent.

Opinion:
Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.
Concur: Chaser Cardozo, Pound and Andrews, JJ.; Hiscook, Ch. J., and Collin, J., dissent on the ground that the complaint did not allege any excuse for noncompliance with the contract and the evidence did not show such compliance. Not sitting: McLaughlin, J.