Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
Contracts · MBE-tested
William H. Mors, Respondent, v. Patrick Stanton, Appellant
51 N.Y. 649·New York Commission of Appeals·1873·NY
All concur.
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
William H. Mors, Respondent, v. Patrick Stanton, Appellant.
(Argued September 23,1872;
decided January term, 1873.)
An appearance of defendant by attorney, and upon the trial, in an action under the mechanics’ lien law of 185.4 for Westchester and other counties (chap. 402, Laws of 1854), is a waiver of any defect in the service of the summons, and binds defendant the same as in any other action.
This was an action brought under the lien law of 1854 (chap. 402, Laws of 1854), for work done by plaintiff for the contractors for certain repairs upon a church in Rensselaer county. Defendant was the superior of a religious order, having charge of the premises in question; it was deeded to him and “ his successors in office forever.” The grantor had previously executed a perpetual lease thereof to Bishop McOloskey, and the deed to defendant contained this clause: “ forever released and discharged from the rent reserved in a lease of said premises, dated,” etc., referring to said lease. Defendant moved for a nonsuit, upon the ground that he had no interest in the property subject to a lien; which motion was denied, and the jury gave a verdict for plaintiff. Held, that, to support the finding of the jury, it would be presumed that the lease was canceled with the assent of the lessee; or, if otherwise, the clause, being repugnant to the granting portion of the deed, was inoperative, and that the lien was valid. Defendant appeared in the action by attorney, and, upon the trial, the summons and notice was served upon Rev. Thomas Galbery. Held, that defendant’s appearance was a waiver of all defects in service, the same as in other actions.
Francis Rising for the appellant.
E. F. Bullard for the respondent.
[MAJORITY — Hunt, C.,]
Hunt, C.,
reads for affirmance.
All concur.
Order of General Term affirmed, and judgment ordered for plaintiff upon verdict.