Case Name: Standard Sand and Gravel Company, Respondent, v. The City of New York et al., Defendants. The Royal Company of New York, Appellant and Respondent; Hildreth Granite Company, Appellant and Respondent, and Fredenburg & Lounsbury, Respondent
Court: New York Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1918-11-19
Citations: 224 N.Y. 687
Docket Number: 
Parties: Standard Sand and Gravel Company, Respondent, v. The City of New York et al., Defendants. The Royal Company of New York, Appellant and Respondent; Hildreth Granite Company, Appellant and Respondent, and Fredenburg & Lounsbury, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Reports
Volume: 224
Pages: 687–688

Head Matter:
Standard Sand and Gravel Company, Respondent, v. The City of New York et al., Defendants. The Royal Company of New York, Appellant and Respondent; Hildreth Granite Company, Appellant and Respondent, and Fredenburg & Lounsbury, Respondent.
Standard Sand & Gravel Co. v. City of New York, 172 App. Div. 80, affirmed.
(Argued October 29, 1918
decided November 19, 1918.)
Appeal by defendant Royal Company of New York from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered March 7, 1916, affirming so much of a judgment of Special Term as subordinated its claim under an assignment made to it by the defendant Acme Asphalt and Granite Paving Company of all the moneys due or to become due from the defendant the city of New York to the defendant Acme Asphalt and Granite Paving Company upon a municipal contract for repairing Second avenue to the hens filed by the plaintiff and the defendant Fredenburg & Lounsbury. Also an appeal by the defendant Hildreth Granite Company from so much of said judgment as affirmed that part of said judgment or decree which adjudged that the hen filed by it was invalid and not enforceable against the money due or to become due under said contract. The Acme Asphalt and Granite Paving Company entered into a contract with defendant Royal Company by which in consideration of advances made and to be made it assigned to said Royal Company all moneys due and to become due to it from the city of New York under its contract with the city. This contract was filed prior to the filing of any notices of lien but some advances were made after the filing of lien by defendant Fredenburg & Lounsbury. The Special Term held that the assignment by the Acme Company to the Royal Company was in the nature of security for advances made and to be made and could only protect the assignee to the extent of advances made by it prior to the filing of notices of lien, and that the notice of lien filed by this appellant is invalid because it omits to state the date when the amount claimed was due as required by section 12 of the Lien Law.
Isaac Josephson and L. E. Warren for Royal Company, appellant and respondent.
A. P. Bachman and James E. Bennet for Hildreth Granite Company, appellant and respondent.
Norman P. 8. Schloss for plaintiff, respondent.
Frank M. Avery and Henry W. Eaton for Fredenburg & Lounsbury, respondent.

Opinion:
Judgment affirmed, with costs to respondent Fredenburg & Lounsbury against the Royal Company of New York; with costs to plaintiff against Hildreth Granite Company and Royal Company of New York and costs of Royal Company of New York against Hildreth Granite Company; no opinion.
Concur: His cock, Ch. J., Chase, Collin, Cuddeback, Cardozo and Pound, JJ. Absent: Andrews, J,