
    (173 App. Div. 962)
    In re CANDEE, SMITH & HOWLAND CO.
    (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.
    May 26, 1916.)
    Mechanics’ Liens <$=228—Enforcement—Suit Against Surety—Leave to Sue.
    A surety on an undertaking given to discharge a mechanic’s lien may be sued in an action to foreclose the lien without plaintiff’s procuring leave to sue.
    [Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Mechanics’ Liens) Cent. Dig. § 411; Dec. Dig. <§=228.j
    Appeal from Special Term, New York County.
    In the matter of the application of Candee, Smith & Howland Company for leave to sue in its own name, etc. From an order denying motion by petitioner for leave to sue the Illinois Surety Company on its undertaking given to discharge a mechanic's lien, petitioner appeals. Order affirmed.
    Argued before CLARKE, P. J., and SCOTT, DOWEING, SMITH, and PAGE, JJ.
    A. R. Hager, of New York City, for appellant.
    Nelson L. ICeach, of New York City, for respondent.
   PER CURIAM.

The order appealed from is affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements, on the ground that no leave to sue is necessary. Pierce v. Wilson, 118 App. Div. 662, 103 N. Y. Supp. 678; Vitelli v. May, 120 App. Div. 448, 104 N. Y. Supp. 1082. Order filed.  