Chuch v.GarRison
California Supreme Court
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. The act of March 12, 1885, should not be so construed as to give a person performing labor upon a thrashing machine, at the request of a person not the owner, a lien thereon as against the owner. Such a construction would render the act unconstitutional.
Read the full summary
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. The act of March 12, 1885, should not be so construed as to give a person performing labor upon a thrashing machine, at the request of a person not the owner, a lien thereon as against the owner. Such a construction would render the act unconstitutional. (Hollingsworth v. Dow 19 Pick. 228; Phillips on Mechanics’ Liens, sec. 496; Quillian v. Central R. R., 52 Ga. 374; Landry v. Blachard 16 La. Ann. 173; Hayes v. Fessenden, 106 Mass. 228; Wilson v. Barnard, 67 Cal. 422; Overton on…
1Opinion of the CourtSharpstein, J.
—The plaintiff alleges that the defendants, Garrison and Falla, are indebted to him in the sum of $138.25 for work and labor performed for them, at their request, on their certain thrashing machine, while engaged in thrashing grain in Fresno County, between June 1 and August 14, 1886. Then follows a description of the machine, its appurtenances and value. He alleges that he quit work on said fourteenth day of August, and that ten days have not expired since he ceased so working. He alleges that he has a lien on the machine and its appurtenances for the amount due him for said work, that there…
2Cited by6 opinions
- Holt Manufacturing Co. v. CollinsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1908
- Lowe v. WoodsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1893
- Lambert v. DavisCalifornia Supreme Court · 1897
- Pilcher v. ParkerSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1927
- Smith v. LusterSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1928
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.