Case Name: M. Haupt Company, complainant-appellant, v. Board of Education of Edgewater, defendant-respondent
Court: New Jersey Court of Errors and Appeals
Jurisdiction: New Jersey
Decision Date: 1917-03-05
Citations: 87 N.J. Eq. 362
Docket Number: 
Parties: M. Haupt Company, complainant-appellant, v. Board of Education of Edgewater, defendant-respondent.
Judges: For affirmance—Ti-ie Ci-iiee-Justice, Garrison, Swayze, Trenchard, Parker, 'Bergen, Minturn,' Kallscit, Black, White, Heppeni-ieimer, Williams, Gardner—13.
Reporter: New Jersey Equity Reports
Volume: 87
Pages: 362–362

Head Matter:
M. Haupt Company, complainant-appellant, v. Board of Education of Edgewater, defendant-respondent.
[Submitted November Term, 1916.
Decided March 5th, 1917.]
On appeal from a decree of the court of chancery.
Mr. William B. Madcay, Jr., for the complainant-appellant.
Mr. Milton Demaresl and Mr. Abram DeBaun, for the defendant-respondent.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
The advisory master dismissed the bill because suit was not begun within ninety days after filing the lien as required by the act of March 30th, 1892. Comp. Stat. p. 3315. He relied upon the authority of Hermann v. Mexican Petroleum Corporation, 85 N. J. Eq. 367. Without expressing any opinion as to the correctness of the view taken by the learned vice-chancellor in that case, we think it enough to say that when a lien is claimed, the suit is not begun until the subpoena is taken out. The case is analogous to that of Haughwout v. Murphy, N. J. Eq. 531.
This view leads to an affirmance of the decree, with costs.
For affirmance—Ti-ie Ci-iiee-Justice, Garrison, Swayze, Trenchard, Parker, 'Bergen, Minturn,' Kallscit, Black, White, Heppeni-ieimer, Williams, Gardner—13.
For reversal—None.