Barker v. Doherty
California Supreme Court
Appeal from an order of the Superior Court of the city and county of'San Francisco denying a new trial. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtGaroutte, J.
Action brought to foreclose certain mechanics’ liens. The court found that they were prematurely filed, and rendered judgment for respondents. The plans and specifications were made a part of the contract, and were not filed in the recorder’s office; hence the contract was void. (Willamette Co. v. College Co., 94 Cal. 229; Yancy v. Morton, 94 Cal. 558.)
*11Appellants were material-men, and the only question involved in this appeal is, Were the liens filed prematurely? And that question is answered by a determination as to the time when the building was completed. The court found that the building…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Willamette Steam Mills Lumbering & Manufacturing Co. v. Los Angeles College Co.California Supreme Court · 1892
- Kellogg v. HowesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1889
- Yancy v. MortonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1892
3Cited by6 opinions
- Laidlaw v. MaryeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1901
- Joost v. SullivanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1896
- Condon v. DonohueCalifornia Supreme Court · 1911
- Pierce v. BirkholmCalifornia Supreme Court · 1894
- Kuhlman v. BurnsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1897
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.