Legal Opinion

Linck v. Meikeljohn

California Court of Appeal

Decided December 20, 1905No. Civ. No. 121PublishedCited by 10 opinions

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, and from an order denying a new trial. N. P. Conrey, Judge. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. D. H. Laubersheimer, Isidore B. Dockweiler, and S. C. Pardee, for Appellants. Charles L. Batcheller, J. W. Ballard, and Charles D. Ballard, for Respondents.

1Opinion of the CourtAllen, J.

This action was brought by plaintiff to enforce a lien of materialmen who furnished the materials used in the construction of a house erected by a contractor, who constructed the same under a contract with one, not the owner, but who falsely represented himself as such. The trial court by its decreé rendered judgment against the contractor and directed a sale of the building. From this decree and judgment, and an order denying a new trial, the owners of the real property appeal.

It is insisted by appellants upon this appeal that no lien can attach to a building permanently resting upon land,…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Humboldt Lumber Mill Co. v. CrispCalifornia Supreme Court · 1905

3Cited by10 opinions

  1. English v. Olympic Auditorium, Inc.California Supreme Court · 1933
  2. Western Elec. Co., Inc. v. ColleyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1926
  3. Barr Lumber Co. v. ShafferCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1951
  4. Albuquerque Lumber Co. v. Montevista Co.New Mexico Supreme Court · 1934
  5. First Ave. C. & L. Co. v. McWilsonSupreme Court of Alabama · 1913

5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API