Timothy Finn, Plaintiff, v. Carl C. Smith et al., Defendants, Georgianna S. Conkey, Respondent, and The Mohawk Valley Lumber Company, Appellant

Timothy Finn, Plaintiff, v. Carl C. Smith et al., Defendants, Georgianna S. Conkey, Respondent, and The Mohawk Valley Lumber Company, Appellant. Mechanic’s Lien — Insufficient Notice of Lien. A notice that a lien is claimed on the property described therein for §5,589.60, “being the value and agreed price of certain materials furnished and to be furnished, to wit: Timber, lumber,” etc., is fatally defective under the Mechanics’ Lien Law, in that it fails to state explicitly or by plain inference the value or the agreed price of the labor performed or materials furnished at. the time of the filing thereof. Finn v. Smith, 107 App. Div. 630, affirmed. (Argued December 10, 1906; decided December 21, 1906.) Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the third judicial department, entered Movember. 11, 1905, which affirmed a judgment of Special Term canceling of record a mechanic’s lien. The facts, so far as material, are stated in the opinion. H. V. Borst and George C. Stewart for appellant. The notice of lien in question contained a sufficient compliance with subdivision 4, section 9 of the Lien Law. (Gilmore v. Colcord, 183 N. Y. 342.) The statute should be construed literally. (Hall v. Dennerlein, 29 N. Y. S. R. 67; Ogden, v. Alexander, 140 N. Y. 356.) The statements contained in a lien, to render it void or ineffectual, must not only be untrue, . but willfully and intentionally false in some important or material respect. (Ringle v. W. I. Works, 149 N. Y. 439; White v. Livingston, 69 App. Div. 377; Aeschlimann, v. Pres. Hospital, 165 N. Y. 296 ; N. J. S. & I. Co. v. Robinson, 85 App. Div. 517.) P. R. Chapman for respondent. The notice does not comply with the Lien Law, and is, therefore, ineffectual to charge the property. (McKinney v. White, 15 App. Div. 423 ; N. J. S. & I. Co. v. Robinson, 85 App. Div. 512; 178 N. Y. 632; Bradley-Currier Co. v. Pacheteau, 71 App. Div. 148 ; 175 N. Y. 492; Toop v. Smith, 87 App. Div. 241; Bossert v. Happel, 89 App. Div. 7; Armstrong v. Chisholm, 100 App. Div. 440 ; Villaume v. Kirchner, 85 N. Y. Supp. 377; Siegel v. Ehrshowsky, 92 N. Y. Supp. 733 ; Alexander v. Hollender, 106 App. Div. 404.) [MAJORITY — Per Curiam.] Per Curiam. In this case, which is an action to forelose a mechanic’s lien, the Special Term held that the notice of lien filed by the appellant was fatally defective, in that it failed to state the amount of the materials actually furnished at the time of filing the notice, and"the agreed price or value thereof. The only statement in the appellant’s notice of lien is that the appellant claims a lien on the property described therein “ for five thousand five hundred and eighty-nine dollars and sixty cénts ($5,589.60), being the value and agreed price of certain materials furnished and to be furnished, to wit: Timber, lumber,” etc. When the lien was filed the value of material actually delivered for the construction of the building was only $2,661.29. The trial court found that the amount of the lien was not exaggerated by the appellant willfully or intentionally. Despite of such finding we are of opinion that the decision of the trial* court, that the lien was invalid, was correct, and that under the statute any notice of lien must state either explicitly or by plain inference the value or the agreed price of the labor performed or materials furnished at the time of filing thereof. It was so held by the Appellate Division of the first department in Bradley & Currier Company v. Pacheteau (71 App. Div. 148) and New Jersey Steel & Iron Company v. Robinson (85 App. Div. 512), and both cases were affirmed by this court. (175 N. Y. 492; 178 N. Y. 632.) It is true that in the opinion delivered in the later case of Gilmour v. Colcord (183 N. Y. 342) there is found the expression that “nothingwas decided that would warrant the court in holding that the notice of lien in the present case was defective,” but the decision proceeded on the ground that there was no sufficient exception to the decision of the trial court. The case is not to be considered as overruling the prior decisions of this court. It follows that the judgment appealed from must be affirmed, with costs. Cullen, Oh. J., Gray, Edward T. Bartlett, Werner and Hisc'ock, JJ., concur; O’Brien, J., not voting; Chase, J., not sitting. Judgment affirmed.