
    George H. Toop, Respondent, v. Samuel W. B. Smith and Others, Defendants, Impleaded with Herbert Coope and Edwin Shuttleworth, Appellants.
    
      Mechanics lien—a fraudulent grantee of the owner may defend anaction for its foreclosure— when the notice of lien does not sufficiently state the labor performed or the materials furnished.
    
    One Toop entered into a contract with one Smith to furnish labor and materials for premises owned by Smith. Smith subsequently conveyed the property to one Coope, who, in turn, executed a mortgage thereon to one Shuttleworth. Thereafter Toop filed a mechanic’s lien upon the premises against Smith, Coope and Shuttleworth. Subséquetitly he brought an action against Smith, Coope and Shuttleworth to foreclose the mechanic’s lien and to obtain an adjudication that the conveyances to Coope arid Shuttleworth were fraudulent as against Smith’s creditors.
    He alleged in his complaint, and gave some proof tending to support the allegation, that the labor and materials, for which the lien was filed, were furnished at the request of Coope and Shuttleworth. The court found that the conveyances to Coope and Shuttleworth were fraudulent as to Smith’s creditors.
    
      Held, that, as the conveyances to Cóope and Shuttleworth were valid as against Smith, Coope and Shuttleworth had an interest in defending against the lien ■ and were entitled to question its validity.
    The notice of lien filed by the plaintiff alleged, “the labor performed and the materials furnished and the agreed price or value thereof is as follows: Under and by virtue of a contract partly written and partly oral, made with the said Smith, Coope and Shuttleworth, above mentioned, according to specifications . in writing and drawings of the improvements herein mentioned, on or about February 24th, 1898, April 25th, 1899, and September 25th, 1899, and also for certain extra work and materials ordered by said Shuttleworth, all upon the-building and premises situate as hereinafter stated, for the sum of eighty-nine hundred and eighty-seven dollars (18,987.00) with interest on five thousand and ninety one and 11/100 dollars from December 6th, 1899.”
    It did not state what materials were furnished nor w.hat work was done, and no specifications or drawings appeared in or in connection with the notice of lien. Heidi that the lien was invalid, in that the notice did not state the labor performed or to be performed and the materials furnished or to be furnished as is. required by subdivision 4 of section 9 of the Lien Law (Laws of 1897, chap. . 418).
    Appeal, by the defendants, Herbert Coope and another, from a judgment of the Supreme Court in favor of the plaintiff, entered in the office of the clerk .of the county of New York on the 25th day of March, 1902, upon the decision of the court, rendered after a trial at the New York Special Term, sustaining the plaintiff’s claim to a mechanic’s lien and setting aside certain transfers of real estate.
    At the time the plaintiff contracted to perform the work and furnish the materials, for which he claimed the lien, the premises affected by the lien were owned by the defendant Smith. Thereafter Smith conveyed the premises to the defendant Coope, and the latter executed a mortgage thereon to the defendant Shuttleworth.
    
      Thomas C. Ennever, for the appellants.
    
      Rollin M. Morgan, for the respondent.
   Patterson, J.:

Plaintiff sued to foreclose a mechanic’s lien, and in the same action sought to.set aside certain conveyances of the real property against which the lien was filed. The court at Special Term determined that the conveyances were made with intent to hinder, delay and defraud creditors of the defendant Samuel W. B. Smith, with whom,' it was alleged in the complaint, the plaintiff originally contracted to furnish the materials and do the work for which the lien was asserted. The conclusion of the court concerning the fraudulent character of the conveyances was fully sustained by the evidence, which is in every material respect the same as that which was before this court in the case of St. John Woodworking Co. v. Smith (82 App. Div. 348), in which the same conveyances were held to be fraudulent and void. The record in this case, so far as it relates to that subject, contains precisely the same evidence that was before the court in the case referred to, and, indeed, the proof now before us was read from the record of the trial in that case.

But while the conveyances are adjudged to have been fraudulent and void, the question' remains as to the validity and enforcibility of the lien filed against the property. It was filed not only against Samuel W. B. Smith, but also against Herbert Ooope and Edwin Shuttleworth, to affect their interest which in the notice of lien is said to be, so far as known, that of owners in fee; and in the complaint it is alleged that although the contract for work and materials was originally made between the plaintiff and Smith, yet' he, the plaintiff, at the request of the defendants Ooope and Shuttle-worth, continued under the contract to furnish materials for the building in pursuance of the terms of such contract, and it was shown in evidence that materials were so furnished and that allegation of the complaint was supported by some proof.

The effort of the plaintiff, therefore, is to charge a responsibility upon the defendants Ooope and Shuttleworth in connection with the contract. The conveyances by which the title to the premises became vested in Shuttleworth are good as, against Smith, although the property is subjected to the claims of judgment creditors at whose suit they were declared to he fraudulent and void. (Jackson v. Caldwell, 1 Cow. 622 ; Anderson v. Roberts, 18 Johns. 527.) Coope and Shuttleworth, therefore, have an interest in defending against the lien, and it is open to them to question its validity.

The notice of lien filed by the plaintiff was insufficient. It failed to comply with the requirements of the 4th subdivision of the 9th section of the Lien Law. It is required by that subdivision that the notice of lien must state the labor performed or to be performed and the materials furnished or to be furnished, and the agreed price or value thereof. The notice of lien filed by the plaintiff does not contain such a statement. It merely states, .that “ the labor performed and the materials furnished and the agreed price or value thereof is as follows: Under and by virtue of a contract partly written and partly oral, made with the said Smith, .Coope and Shuttleworth, above mentioned,- according to specifications in writing and drawings, of the improvements herein mentioned, on or about February 24th, 1898, April 25th, 1899, and September 25th, 1899, and also for certain extra work and materials ordered by said Sliuttlewórth, all upon the building and premises situate as hereinafter -stated, fpr the sum of eiglity-nine hundred and eighty-seven dollars ($8,987.00) with interest on five thousand and ninety-one and 11/100 dollars from December 6th, 1899.” What materials were furnished and what work was done is nowhere stated, and no specifications or drawings appear in, or in connection with, the notice of lien.

It was held in McKinney v. White (15 App. Div. 423) that, to entitle a claimant to the benefit of the Mechanics’ Lien Law, its directions must be substantially observed, such compliance being necessary to confer jurisdiction upon the court, and also that the statute requires that the notice shall state the nature and amount of labor and services performed or of materials furnished or to be furnished. That case was affirmed by the Court of Appeals (162 N. Y. 601). Here, as there, we are unable to find a statement of the nature and amount of the labor and services performed, or the nature and amount of the materials furnished or to be furnished. The notice is absolutely silent, as to those matters. - There is no direct mention of the character of the work or the nature of the materials, and nothing is presented in connection with the notice by a reference to which that information could be obtained. The cases cited by the respondent to sustain the sufficiency of -the notice of lien do not apply. In Reeves v. Seitz (47 App. Div. 267) the intimation is plain that the notice contained all that was requisite under the statute to constitute a valid notice of lien; and in Vogel v. Luitwieler (52 Hun, 184) it was held only that, as between the parties to that action and in view of its circumstances, the omission to state in the notice of lien what were the materials and work for which the lien was claimed, did not affect the right of that particular plaintiff.

Unless the defendant Shuttleworth has no legal right to contest the validity of this lien it must be adjudged in this action that the notice was insufficient to bind him. We think that he was so situated. with reference to the property- as to entitle him to raise the question.

The judgment must be reversed and a new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide the event.

Van Brunt, P. J., Ingraham, Hatch and Laughlin, JJ., concurred.

Judgment reversed and new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide event.  