Watts-Campbell Co. v. Yuengling
Decision Date | 02 December 1890 |
Citation | 25 N.E. 1060,125 N.Y. 1 |
Parties | WATTS-CAMPBELL CO. v. YUENGLING et al. |
Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from supreme court, general term, first department.
Action by the Watts-Campbell Company, a corporation existing under the laws of New Jersey, against David G. Yuengling, Jr., and Catharine M. Yuengling, his wife, the D. G. Yuengling Brewing Company, and the Farmers' Loan & Trust Company, to foreclose a mechanic's lien filed under the mechanic's lien law of New York of 1885, for machinery erected in a building owned by defendant David G. Yuengling, Jr. The other defendants were alleged to include all those having liens on the property subsequent to that of plaintiff. A judgment for plaintiff was affirmed at general term, (3 N. Y. Supp. 869,) and defendants David G. Yuengling and the D. G. Yuengling Brewing Company again appeal.
Guggenheimer & Untermeyer, for appellants.
Stimson & Williams, for respondent.
The judgment in this case declares that the plaintiff is entitled to and has a lien under the statute for the sum of about $12,000, including certain items of interest and costs upon certain real estate situated in the city of New York, occupied and used as a brewery. It was adjudged as a basis for the result that the plaintiff performed labor and service and furnished materials used in the alteration or repair of a house or building, or appurtenances thereto, within the scope and meaning of the statute creating and authorizing the enforcement of liens in such cases.
The only questions necessary to consider are- First, whether the case is one that falls within the statute; and, secondly, whether the notice of the lien was filed in time. It was found by the trial court that the defendant D. G. Yuengling, Jr., was, prior to November 1, 1887, the owner of the premises described in the decree; that while such owner, and on December 22, [125 N.Y. 4]1886, the plaintiff contracted with him to build and erect on the premises a gas compresser and an engine for the sum of $9,700; that subsequently, and on February 5, 1887, the plaintiff contracted to build for him two oil-traps for the further sum of $750, and certain foundation plates for the sum of $650. The foundation plates were in contemplation of the parties during the negotiations which resulted in the contract for the compresser and engine, and had been specified in a proposal submitted by the plaintiff to the owner prior to the making of that agreement. They were procured in order to cap a stone foundation, to be specially constructed for the engine and compresser. The oil-traps were essential to the efficient working of the other machinery furnished by the plaintiff, and their size ordinarily depends upon that of the engine and compresser in connection with which they were intended to be used. They were ordered in connection with the other machinery, and this order was regarded by both parties as an amplification of the original contract of December 22d. The engine, compresser, oil-traps, and foundation plates were constructed and placed on the premises by the plaintiff, as required by the contract. They were finally annexed to the freehold, with the intention on the part of the owner that they should form a permanent accession to the brewery, for the purpose of producing such artificial cold as was necessary for the proper manufacture of beer. An excavation was made in the cellar of the brewery 21 feet long, 15 feet wide, and 8 feet deep. Around the edges of this hole, 20 iron rods or anchor bolts, about 2 inches in diameter, and about 8 feet long, were placed, each fastened to a cast-iron plate or washer, about 1 1/2 feet square, resting on the ground below and at the bottom of the foundation. These rods or bolts stood up perpendicularly, and the entire hole was gradually filled up around them with rocks weighing from 100 to 400 pounds each, and all cemented into a solid mass. This foundation weighed some 200 tons. The plates were then laid upon it, and the legs of the engine and compresser upon the plates. The tops of the rods passed ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Progress Press Brick & Machine Co. v. Gratiot Brick & Quarry Co.
... ... Atlantic Mill Co., 16 Mo.App. 327; ... Sosman v. Conlon, 57 Mo.App. 25; Allen v. Frumet ... Mining Co., 73 Mo. 688; Watts-Campbell Co. v ... Juengling, 125 N.Y. 1; Morgan v. Arthurs, 3 ... Watts 140; Meek v. Parker, 63 Ark. 367; ... Haskin-Wood Vulcanizing Co. v ... Blossom, 69 N.W. 221); gas compressors and engine in a ... brewery ( Watts-Campbell Co. v. Yuengling, 125 N.Y ... 1, 25 N.E. 1060); engine in a saw-mill ( Morgan v ... Arthurs & Co., 3 Watts 140); wheels and boxes for use in ... a dry kiln ( ... ...
-
Progress Press-Brick & M. Co. v. Gratiot Brick & Q. Co.
...boiler in a manufacturing plant. Shepard v. Blossom (Minn.) 69 N. W. 221. Gas compressor and engine in a brewery. Watts-Campbell Co. v. Juengling, 125 N. Y. 1, 25 N. E. 1060. Engine in a sawmill. Morgan v. Arthurs, 3 Watts, 140. Wheels and boxes for use in a dry kiln. Meek v. Parker, 63 Ark......
-
Congdon v. Kendall
... ... v. Robinson, 37 N.W. 99 ... [Minn.]; McIntyre v. Trautner, 63 Cal. 429; ... Hubbard v. Brown, 90 Mass. 590; Watts-Campbell ... Co. v. Yeungling, 125 N.Y. 1; Badger Lumber Co. v ... Mayes, 38 Neb. 830 ... Ricketts & Wilson and S. L. Geisthardt, ... ...
-
Rieflin v. Grafton
... ... 390] Bros. Com ... Co., 165 Mo. 171, 65 S.W. 318; Farnham v ... Richardson, 91 Me. 559, 40 A. 553; Watts-Campbell ... Co. v. Yuengling, 125 N.Y. 1, 25 N.E. 1060; New Eng ... E. Co. v. Oakwood St. R. Co. (C. C.) 75 F. 162; ... McLean v. Wiley, ... ...