Case Name: In the Matter of the Application of Michael J. Manton, Appellant, for an Order Continuing a Mechanic's Lien Filed against the Brooklyn and Flatbush Realty Company, Respondent, and Another
Court: New York Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1912-12-03
Citations: 206 N.Y. 742
Docket Number: 
Parties: In the Matter of the Application of Michael J. Manton, Appellant, for an Order Continuing a Mechanic’s Lien Filed against the Brooklyn and Flatbush Realty Company, Respondent, and Another.
Judges: Concur: Cullen, Ch. J., Gray, Haight, Vann, Webber, Willard Bartlett and Hiscock, JJ.
Reporter: New York Reports
Volume: 206
Pages: 742–743

Head Matter:
In the Matter of the Application of Michael J. Manton, Appellant, for an Order Continuing a Mechanic’s Lien Filed against the Brooklyn and Flatbush Realty Company, Respondent, and Another.
(Argued November 19, 1912;
decided December 3, 1912.)
Matter of Manton, 152 App. Div. 888, affirmed.
Appeal, by permission, from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the second judicial department, entered July 25, 1912, which affirmed an order of Special Term vacating an ex parte order continuing a mechanic’s lien.
The following questions, were certified:
“ I. Did the Special Term have power under the facts shown in the record .to compel the county clerk to re-docket the lien of the petitioner herein by the order entered October 19, 1911, and the order entered January 7, 1912, re-filing the last named order ?
“II. Did the Special Term have power to vacate and cancel the docket of the lien of the petitioner herein while the order entered October 19, 1911, remains in full effect ?
“III. As a matter of law, does the signing, entry and filing with the county clerk of the order entered herein on October 19, 1911, directing the said county clerk to re-docket the lien and continuing the same, effectuate the re-docketing of the said lien of the petitioner herein as between the lienor’s assignee and the owner, upon the facts shown in the record herein ?
“IV. As a matter of law, after receiving the order entered herein on October 19, 1911, wherein the county clerk was directed to re-docket the lien, and after filing the same, was not the said county clerk required to re-docket said lien upon the facts shown in the record ? ”
Anthony P. Ernest and Martin T. Manton for appellant.
Benjamin Reass for respondent.

Opinion:
Order affirmed, with costs. Questions certified not answered, as the order was appealable as of right as a final order in a special proceeding; no opinion.
Concur: Cullen, Ch. J., Gray, Haight, Vann, Webber, Willard Bartlett and Hiscock, JJ.