General
Charles Parkinson, Respondent, v. George H. Munroe and Alexander Munroe, Composing the Firm of Munroe & Munroe, and Others, Impleaded with Lord's Court Building and The Empire State Surety Company, Appellants
130 A.D. 903·New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division·1909·NY
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
Charles Parkinson, Respondent, v. George H. Munroe and Alexander Munroe, Composing the Firm of Munroe & Munroe, and Others, Impleaded with Lord’s Court Building and The Empire State Surety Company, Appellants.
[MAJORITY]
Judgment affirmed, with costs. No opinion. Ingraham, J., dissented on the ground that the evidence is not sufficient to show a consent by the appellant within the Lien Law.
See Laws of 1897, chap. 418, § 3.— [Rep.