Hawkins v. Mapes-Reeve Const. Co.

• Decision Date: 08 April 1904
• Citation: 178 N.Y. 236,70 N.E. 783
• Parties: HAWKINS et al. v. MAPES-REEVE CONST. CO. et al.
• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

178 N.Y. 236

70 N.E. 783

HAWKINS et al.

v.MAPES-REEVE CONST. CO. et al.

Court of Appeals of New York.

April 8, 1904.

Appeal from Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

Action by Frank B. Hawkins and others against the Mapes-Reeve Construction Company and the American Bonding & Trust Company of Baltimore City. From a judgment of the Appellate Division (81 N. Y. Supp. 794) affirming a judgment for plaintiffs, defendant American Bonding & Trust Company appeals. Affirmed.

William F. Kimber and Charles De Hart Brower, for appellant.

Leo Everett and Charles M. Hough, for respondents.

WERNER, J.

The plaintiffs, as subcontractors under the Mapes-Reeve Construction Company, agreed to furnish all the materials and labor for the iron and steel work that was to go into an addition to Gouverneur Hospital, in the city of New York, at the price of $13,400. It is conceded that this subcontract was never fully performed by the plaintiffs, but they claim that it was unjustifiably terminated by the Mapes-Reeves Construction Company, while the latter contends that the plaintiffs abandoned the work without cause. The plaintiffs filed a notice of lien, which was later discharged upon the giving of an undertaking for that purpose by the defendant American Bonding & Trust Company.

At Special Term it was held upon conflicting evidence that the Mapes-Reeve Company was at fault in refusing to make payments to plaintiffs as they became due, and in neglecting to provide them with the detail drawings necessary to enable them to complete the work. This finding of fact was followed by the legal conclusion that the plaintiffs were entitled to judgment fot the sum of $2,963.15, with interest and costs. The judgment entered upon this decision was affirmed at the Appellate Division by a divided court. Having ascertained from the record that there is some evidence to support the findings of fact made at Special Term, we have reached the limit of our power to investigate the facts. The question whether there is any evidence to support a finding of fact is one of law reviewable by this court. When there is such evidence, the question is no longer one of law, and the decision of the courts below upon the facts is final, even though it may be erroneous. Ostrom v. Greene, 161 N. Y. 353, 55 N. E. 919. There are other questions of law presented for our consideration, however, which we have jurisdiction to review, and these we will briefly discuss.

1. The American Bonding & Trust Company, which alone has appealed from the judgment below, contends that there should have been no recovery against it because plaintiffs' notice of lien was improperly filed. At Special Term it was held that the lien was properly filed. At the Appellate Division the contrary view was taken, but the judgment for the plaintiffs was upheld (a) under section 3412 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which provides, in substance, that if a lienor shall fail for any reason to establish a valid lien he may recover judgment in an action to enforce or foreclose a mechanic's lien against any party to the action for any sum that he might recover in an action on contract; and (b) that the bond given by the appellant surety company was broad enough to secure the payment of such a judgment. In determining whether plaintiffs' notice of lien was properly filed, two considerations are to be borne in mind. The first is that the statute (chapter 703, p. 1751, Laws 1894, amended chapter 399, p. 746, Laws 1895) authorizing the addition to Gouverneur Hospital, for which the plaintiffs' labor and materials were furnished, does not clearly designate any board, body, or official as having charge of the work, and it is therefore difficult, if not impossible, to decide with whom the notice of lien was to be filed. The second is that the lien law is to be construed liberally to secure the beneficial interests and purposes thereof, and that a substantial compliance with its terms shall be sufficient for the validity of a lien and to give jurisdiction to the courts to enforce the same. Section 22, c. 418, p. 525, Laws 1897. Under the statute providing for the erection of an addition to Gouverneur Hospital, the commissioners of the sinking fund were authorized and directed, when required by the board of estimate and apportionment, to set apart a portion of Gouverneur Slip, and to erect thereon an addition to Gouverneur Hospital. The commissioners of the sinking fund were empowered to employ an architect and to make contracts, but the work was to be done under the supervision of the superintendent of public works of the city of New York. The latter was to certify to the commissioners of the sinking fund any contractor's delay or abandonment of work, and any willful violation of the contract, and in such case the said commissionerswere required to give notice to the sureties of the defaulting contractor, to the end that the work should either be properly and expeditiously proceeded with by the contractor, or completed by the commissioner of public works, with the consent of the commissioners of the sinking fund, according to the contingencies specified in ...