
    Moscow Machine Tool and Engine Company, Respondent, v. Oscar L. Richard et al., Copartners under the Firm Name of C. B. Richard & Company, Appellants.
    (Argued June 12, 1925;
    decided July 15, 1925.)
    
      Lien — money had and received — action to recover surplus moneys arising from sale under Lien Law — defense that plaintiffs corporate existence had been ended by Russian Soviet Government — claim against Russian government may not be offset against money due to plaintiff.
    
    
      Moscow Machine Tool & Engine Co. v. Richard, 212 App. Div. 869, affirmed.
    Appeal ' from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered February 26, 1925, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon an order of Special Term granting a motion to strike out defendant’s answer and for summary judgment. The complaint alleged that plaintiff was a corporation duly organized under the laws of the government of Russia prior to 1914; that for some time prior to January 14, 1920, defendants held and claimed a lien upon machines and tools which were the property of plaintiff, and that about January fourteenth they caused these machines to be sold at public auction in compliance with the Lien Law; that as a result of such sale a surplus was realized of $10,450.90, which defendants received and held subject to plaintiff’s order and for its account; that defendants did not within thirty days from the date of the sale pay over this balance to plaintiff or deposit it with the chamberlain of New York city, pursuant to the requirements of section 204 of the Lien Law, and in spite of demands made upon defendants, have retained this balance, no part of which sum has been repaid to plaintiff. The defense was that plaintiff’s corporate existence was terminated by the Soviet Republic and its property confiscated and that defendants are entitled to retain the surplus proceeds as an offset against a claim of theirs against the Soviet government for property seized in Russia.
    
      
      J. Charles Weschler for appellants.
    
      Henry H. Abbott and William B. Shealy for respondent.
   Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: His cock, Ch. J., Cardozo, McLaughlin, Crane, Andrews and Lehman, JJ. Absent: Pound, J.  