Legal Opinion

Holt v. Miller

California Supreme Court

Decided January 14, 1932No. Docket No. L.A. 11399PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtCurtis, J.

Appeal from a judgment of dismissal for want of prosecution of the above-entitled action on the ground that said action had not been brought to trial within two years after the commencement thereof. The action was one for the foreclosure of a mechanic’s lien and was commenced on September 14, 1926. On January 7, 1929, the court, upon motion of defendant, Howard G. Thompson, Inc., dismissed said action on the ground above stated. The portion of section 1190 of the Code of Civil Procedure material to this appeal reads as follows:

“No lien provided for in this chapter binds any property for a…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Miller & Lux Inc. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1923
  2. Ravn v. PlanzCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1918
  3. Mazitelli v. CraneCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1917

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Steinbauer v. BondesenCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1932
  2. Legg v. United Benefit Life InsuranceCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1955
  3. Bank of America National Trust & Savings Ass'n v. Moore & HarrahCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1942
  4. Briley v. SukoffCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1979
  5. Bronger v. Polytechnic School of Beauty Culture Ltd.California Court of Appeal · 1943

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

Powered by the Exa API