
    George E. Sealy Co., Inc., Appellant, v. Ards Building Corporation, Respondent, Impleaded with Others.
    
      Liens — mechanic’s lien — action to foreclose lien of subcontractor — abandonment of worh by general contractor and completion by owner at cost sufficient to exhaust contract price.
    
    
      Sealy Co., Inc., v. Ards Building Corp., 216 App. Div. 313, affirmed-
    (Argued January 12, 1927;
    decided January 27, 1927.)
    Appeal, by permission, from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered March 26, 1926, which affirmed a determination of the Appellate Term affirming a judgment of the City Court of the city of New York in favor of defendant, respondent, in an action to foreclose a mechanic's lien. Plaintiff was a subcontractor. The principal contractor abandoned the work which was finished by the owner. It was shown that the cost of completion left but $36.13 in the hancjs of the owner out of the contract price and that this balance was subject to legal expenses, leaving nothing for subcontractors.
    
      Samuel D. Johnson and Charles L. Apfel for appellant.
    
      .Edward Hymes and Arthur Knox for respondent.
   Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Cardozo, Ch. J., Pound, Crane, Andrews and Lehman, JJ. Absent: Kellogg, J.  