TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Kingston v. M.S. Construction Corporation

John H. Kingston, and v. M.S. Construction Corporation, and Impleaded With Others.

Kingston v. M.S. Constr. Corp., 164 N.E. 573 (N.Y. 1928)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
New York Court of Appeals · State Highest Courts
Decided
October 23, 1928
Citations
164 N.E. 573249 N.Y. 5331928 N.Y. LEXIS 872

Opinion of the Court

[EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] [EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] Order of the Appellate Division reversed and that of the Special Term affirmed, with costs in this court and in the Appellate Division; question certified answered in the negative on the ground that the notice of lien was not verified in accordance with the statute; no opinion,

Concur: CARDOZO, Ch. J., POUND, CRANE, ANDREWS, LEHMAN, KELLOGG and O'BRIEN, JJ. *Page 537

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1929: 31930: 11931: 11932: 11956: 119292026peak 1929 · 3

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Ponsrok v. City of Yonkers228 A.D. 642 (1929)
  2. Mozarsky v. Whinston Bros.228 A.D. 642 (1929)
  3. Mozarsky v. Whinston Bros.228 A.D. 642 (1929)
  4. Ponsrok v. City of Yonkers171 N.E. 917 (N.Y. 1930)
  5. Dwelle-Kaiser Co. v. Frid139 Misc. 83 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1931)
  6. JD Loizeaux Lumber Co. v. Davis124 A.2d 593 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1956)

Most recent

  1. JD Loizeaux Lumber Co. v. Davis124 A.2d 593 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1956)
  2. Terrell v. Meisenhelder143 Misc. 911 (1932)
  3. Dwelle-Kaiser Co. v. Frid139 Misc. 83 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1931)
  4. Ponsrok v. City of Yonkers171 N.E. 917 (N.Y. 1930)
  5. Ponsrok v. City of Yonkers228 A.D. 642 (1929)
  6. Mozarsky v. Whinston Bros.228 A.D. 642 (1929)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list