
    John Madden, Appellant, v. Anna J. Lennon, Impleaded, etc., Respondent.
    (Supreme Court, Appellate Term,
    June, 1898.)
    Mechanic’s lien — Proof required of subcontractor.
    In order to recover against the owner of premises, a subcontractor must show that something was due fipm the owner to the principal contractor when the lien of the subcontractor was filed, or that, thereafter, a sum became, due from the ownér to the principal contractor which sum was applicable to the claim of the subcontractor.
    Appeal from a judgment rendered in th^ Municipal Court of the city of Hew York, borough of Manhattan, eleventh district, dismissing the complaint with respect to the respondent Anna J. Lennon. /
    Earley & Prendergast, for appellant.
    Jesse W. Ehrie, for respondent.
   Per Curiam.

The burden of proof rested upon the plaintiff, of showing that there was something due from the owner to the principal contractor at the time of filing the lien, or that thereafter a sum became due from her to such contractor which would be applicable to the payment of his debt to the plaintiff. Lemieux v. English, 19 Misc. Rep. 545; Keavey v. De Rago, 20 id. 105; Van Clief v. Van Vechten, 130 N. Y. 571. He-has failed to sustain this burden, and the judgment rendered in favor of the respondent Anna J, Lennon, the owner of the premises affected by the lien, must, therefore, be affirmed.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

Present: Beekmah, P. J., Gildersleeve and Giegerich, JJ,

Judgment affirmed, with costs.  