Case Name: PALMER LUMBER CO. v. STERN
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1910-11-15
Citations: 125 N.Y.S. 594
Docket Number: 
Parties: PALMER LUMBER CO. v. STERN.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 125
Pages: 594–597

Head Matter:
PALMER LUMBER CO. v. STERN.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.
November 15, 1910.)
Mechanics’ Liens (§ 271 )—-Foreclosure—Complaint.
A complaint to foreclose a mechanic’s lien is not demurrable for failure to allege specifically that the amount of plaintiff’s claim, or some part thereof, was unpaid at the time the notice of lien was filed, or that it was earned after the filing of the notice, so long as such sum remained unpaid at the time of the commencement of the action, nor was it necessary to allege the exact amount which was unpaid and due to the contractor, provided an amount was due sufficient to equal plaintiff’s claim.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Mechanics’ Liens, Cent. Dig. § 494; Dec. Dig. § 271.*]
Spring and Robson, J.T., dissenting.
Appeal from Monroe County Court.
Action by the Palmer Lumber Company against Kittie Stern to foreclose a mechanic’s lien. From a judgment sustaining a demurrer to the complaint, plaintiff appeals.
Reversed, and demurrer overruled, with leave to defendant to plead.
Argued before McLENNAN, P. J., and SPRING, WILLIAMS, KRUSE, and ROBSON, JJ.
Frederick B. Hall, for appellant.
Charles H. Rowe, for respondent.
For other cases see same topic & § number in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date. & Rep’r Indexes

Opinion:
KRUSE, J.
The action is to foreclose a mechanic's lien. The defendant owner demurs to the plaintiff's complaint upon the ground that it fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. The County Court sustained the demurrer, and the plaintiff appeals.
The precise ground upon which the demurrer was sustained is, as I understand it, that the complaint fails to allege specifically that the amount of plaintiff's claim, or some part of it, was unpaid at the time the notice of lien was filed, or that it was earned after the filing of the notice; the plaintiff having furnished material to the defendant contractor, who erected the building on the premises in question for the defendant owner.
It seems to me that the complaint states facts sufficient to show that the plaintiff is entitled to the foreclosure of its lien and the relief asked for as against the owner, as well as the contractor, considering the complaint as a whole. It alleges that the defendant contractor entered into a contract with the owner for erecting the house; that the contractor should be paid therefor $6,252.50; that the plaintiff entered into a contract with the defendant contractor whereby it agreed to furnish and deliver to it certain lumber for the sum of $1,234.10, which the defendant contractor agreed to pay therefor upon delivery; that the lumber was so furnished and delivered and used in the construction of the building, except to the amount of $86.80; that $600 was paid on the bill on October 27, 1909; ánd that there remains due and unpaid the sum of $547.30, which became due on the 30th of October, 1909, and is now due the plaintiff. It alleges the filing of the lien on the 6th of November, 1909; that the contractor duly performed all the conditions of its contract, and so far completed the same as to be entitled, prior to the commencement of the action, to receive thereon a sum in excess of the amount of plaintiff's claim; and that prior to the commencement of the action there was due to the defendant contractor from the defendant owner a sum in excess of the amount of the plaintiff's claim.
I do not think it was necessary to allege that the amount or some part of it was unpaid at the time the notice was filed, nor that it was earned after the filing of the notice, because, if it was unpaid at the commencement of the action (which was after the lien was filed), the plaintiff is entitled to enforce its claim against the owner, whether it was earned before or after the notice of lien was filed.
Neither do I think it necessary to allege the exact amount which is unpaid and due the contractor. As regards the plaintiff, it is only- necessary that there is due andi unpaid to the contractor an amount equal to the plaintiff's claim.
The complaint alleges that no persons have filed liens, and that there are no subsequent liens or claims by judgment, mortgage, or conveyance against the property.
The demurrer should be overruled, with costs, with leave to defendant to plead over on the usual terms. All concur, except SPRING and ROBSON, JJ., who dissent in an opinion by SPRING, J.