Meyer v. City Street Improvement Co.
California Supreme Court
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtShaw, J.
The action herein was in the ordinary form of a suit to quiet title. An answer and cross-complaint were filed by the appellant in which it set up that it had a lien on plaintiff’s lot by virtue of a contract for the improvement of the street in- front thereof, entered into with plaintiff’s grantor who owned the lot at the time of the contract. The trial court held that the appellant had no lien and gave judgment quieting respondent’s title, from which judgment, and from an order refusing a new trial, the present appeals are taken.
The improvement referred to consisted of paving and curbing the…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Warren v. HopkinsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1895
- C.A. MacOmber v. L. M. BigelowCalifornia Supreme Court · 1899
- Kreuzberger v. WingfieldCalifornia Supreme Court · 1892
3Cited by5 opinions
- Richards v. Hillside Development Co.California Court of Appeal · 1960
- Boscus v. WaldmannCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1916
- Garland v. SamsonCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1916
- Greely v. NobleCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1919
- Los Angeles City School District v. PayneCalifornia Supreme Court · 1933