Legal Opinion

Emigh-Winchell Hardware Co. v. Pylman

California Court of Appeal

Decided October 26, 1918No. Civ. No. 1582PublishedCited by 1 opinion

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

1Opinion of the CourtBurnett, J.

makes the mistake of assuming that this is a case for the application of the section of the code relating to the condition wherein there has been not an actual completion of the building, but a mere cessation from labor. If that were true, the building would not be deemed completed until thirty days after such cessation.

But, as pointed out in our former opinion, the evidence and the finding were to the effect that the building was actually completed on May 2, 1914. If respondent, Pylman, had relied upon the circumstance of the cessation of labor, regardless of actual completion, as the…

2Cases cited21 opinions

  1. Willamette Steam Mills Lumbering & Manufacturing Co. v. Los Angeles College Co.California Supreme Court · 1892
  2. Tennant v. John Tennant Memorial HomeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1914
  3. Lane & Bodley Co. v. JonesSupreme Court of Alabama · 1885
  4. Bird v. American Surety Co. of New YorkCalifornia Supreme Court · 1917
  5. Stimson Mill Co. v. Los Angles Traction Co.California Supreme Court · 1903

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

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. C. Ganahl Lumber Co. v. ThompsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1928

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

Powered by the Exa API