Read PDF The peaches of New York (1917)

Free download. Book file PDF easily for everyone and every device. You can download and read online The peaches of New York (1917) file PDF Book only if you are registered here. And also you can download or read online all Book PDF file that related with The peaches of New York (1917) book. Happy reading The peaches of New York (1917) Bookeveryone. Download file Free Book PDF The peaches of New York (1917) at Complete PDF Library. This Book have some digital formats such us :paperbook, ebook, kindle, epub, fb2 and another formats. Here is The CompletePDF Book Library. It's free to register here to get Book file PDF The peaches of New York (1917) Pocket Guide.

The standard author abbreviation Hedrick is used to indicate this person as the author when citing a botanical name.

History of Horticulture. Archived from the original on Retrieved Lyon Co: Albany, NY, p. Powell Authors of Plant Names. Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew. AAAS Fellows.

American Association for the Advancement of Science. December Namespaces Article Talk. We reject that argument; our precedents establish that the Lien Law does not require any direct relationship between the property owner and the contractor for the contractor to be able to enforce a lien against the property owner.

  • Seller information.
  • Peaches of New York by Hedrick -Large Stippled Litho - "HALE EARLY" - 1917.
  • The peaches of New York (1917);
  • Temporal Bone: An Imaging Atlas;

The "impetus" behind the law is to provide "protection to those who furnish work, labor and services or provide materials for the improvement of real property" West-Fair Elec. Contractors v Aetna, 87 NY2d , [] [quoting floor speech by Sen. James Donovan]. Instead, "[t]o fall within that provision the owner must either be an affirmative factor in procuring the improvement to be made, or having possession and control of the premises assent to the improvement in the expectation that he will reap the benefit of it" Rice v Culver, NY 60, [].

Similar stock images

In Rice, we concluded that the landowner could not be held liable for the work contracted for by the tenant who had leased the land to build and maintain an athletic field. Although the landowner consented "in a certain sense of the word" because he "must have known" at the time the lease was executed that the tenant planned to make improvements in order to use the property for the purpose covenanted for in the lease, that knowledge alone was "insufficient to show that the appellant consented to the performance by the plaintiff of the work for which her lien was filed" id.

However, we distinguished Rice from our prior cases "in which the tenant covenanted by the lease to erect buildings or make improvements. In those cases the. In particular, we noted the contractual requirement that the tenant convert the space to a "first-class saloon," that the conversion be accomplished in a few months, and that failure to timely complete the conversion would terminate the lease and vest title to the improvements in the landlord.

In that way, the owner sufficiently "consented to the[ repairs] and.

The peaches of New York

A similar result obtained in McNulty Bros. No material facts are in dispute here. The language of the lease agreement not only expressly authorized Peaches to undertake the electrical work, but also required it to do so to effectuate the purpose of the lease—that is, for Peaches to open the restaurant for business and operate it continuously, seven days a week, during hours specified by COR. Furthermore, the detailed language makes clear that COR was to retain close supervision over the work and authorized it to exercise at least some direction over the work by reviewing, commenting on, revising, and granting ultimate approval for the design drawings related to the electrical work.

The agreement provided that the purchaser would pay rent in the meantime, and that the agreement would be voided if the purchaser did not take title within the year.

The peaches of New York ( Stock Photo: - Alamy

Although the agreement did not contemplate any construction work, the purchaser undertook new construction on the property. There must be some affirmative act by the owner" id.

THE PEACHES OF NEW YORK : Report of the New York Agricultural Experiment Station for the Year 1916

We determined that the owner had not consented to the improvements:. The most that can be said. That the lienors never dealt with the record owner or her agent in respect to those improvements cannot be doubted. The evidence demonstrates that the credit accorded by the lienors was to the tenants and not to the owner, that all the transactions relating to the improvements occurred between the lienors and. The underscored portions, stripped from the balance of the decision, have been emphasized in some Appellate Division decisions to impose a requirement of a direct relationship between owner and contractor.

Read properly, however, Delany simply noted that the lease did not contain any provisions requiring the tenant to undertake the improvement work made by the lienors. Finding none, we concluded that the owner had not consented and, therefore, that the lienors could not proceed against the landlord. Our decisions make clear that that "affirmative act" can include lease terms requiring specific improvements to the property see Burkitt, 79 NY ; Otis, 90 NY ; Jones, NY The decision in Paul Mock, when read properly, is consistent with our precedents, as are most of the Appellate Division cases relied on by COR.

For the above reasons, the judgment appealed from and the Appellate Division order brought up for review should be affirmed, with costs. Judgment appealed from, and Appellate Division order brought up for review, affirmed, with costs. Opinion by Judge Wilson.

Image from page 256 of "The peaches of New York" (1917)

Disclaimer: Justia Annotations is a forum for attorneys to summarize, comment on, and analyze case law published on our site. Justia makes no guarantees or warranties that the annotations are accurate or reflect the current state of law, and no annotation is intended to be, nor should it be construed as, legal advice. Contacting Justia or any attorney through this site, via web form, email, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship.

Enter your email. Ferrara v.