Ritter v. Stevenson
California Supreme Court
Appeal from the Superior Court of the City of San Francisco. This was an action to recover for work and labor performed in erecting a house, and to foreclose a mechanic’s lien on the same. Ritter, the present plaintiff, claims, through an assignment, (or pretended assignment,) from Meetier, the mechanic, to whom the money was due. The Court below gave judgment for plaintiff. Defendant appealed.
1Opinion of the CourtMurray, C. J.
The whole case must turn upon the validity of the assignment, and may be divided into two questions:
1. Whether a parol assignment of this claim was sufficient to *389enable the plaintiff to maintain an action for the foreclosure of the lien.
2. If the plaintiff is, in fact, the assignee of Meetier.
Upon the first point, there seems to be no difficulty. Under our statute, every conveyance whereby real estate is aliened, mortgaged, assigned, charged, or affected, must be in writing.
A mechanic’s lien is in the nature of a mortgage, and is a charge on the land.
In the former decisions of this Court, it…
2Cited by10 opinions
- Laubisch v. RoberdoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1954
- Skyrme v. Occidental Mill & Mining Co.Nevada Supreme Court · 1873
- Curnow v. GravelCalifornia Supreme Court · 1885
- Duncan v. HawnCalifornia Supreme Court · 1894
- Union Supply Co. v. MorrisCalifornia Supreme Court · 1934
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.