Wilson v. Hind
California Supreme Court
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco. J. C. B. Hebbabd, Judge. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtTemple, J.
This appeal is from the judgment and was taken within sixty days after its rendition. The action was to foreclose a materialman’s lien. The court held that plaintiffs had no lien on two grounds: 1. Be*359cause they did not furnish material to the owner or his agent, or to a contractor or subcontractor; 2. Because there was a fatal variance between the contract proven and that stated in the claim of lien.
Henry Behrens was the contractor. He contracted with W. R. Johnston to furnish all the mill work for the house, and to deliver it at the building. Mr. Johnston was called as a witness for…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Hinckley v. Field's Biscuit & Cracker Co.California Supreme Court · 1891
3Cited by6 opinions
- Theisen v. County of Los AngelesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1960
- Caulfield v. PolkIndiana Court of Appeals · 1897
- Harris & Stunston, Inc. v. Yorba Linda Citrus Ass'nCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1933
- Tarter, Webster & Johnson, Inc. v. Windsor Developers, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1963
- Lucas v. ReaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1909
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.