Legal Opinion

Johnson v. Smith

California Court of Appeal

Decided March 25, 1929No. Docket No. 6204PublishedCited by 11 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtHouser, Acting P. J.

This is an appeal by the defendants from a judgment rendered against them in an action to foreclose a mechanic’s lien.

Appellants urge that the claim of lien was invalid because it failed to comply with the requirement of the statute that (among other things) it contain “a general statement of the kind of work done or materials furnished.” (Sec. 1187, Code Civ. Proc.) An examination of the claim of lien upon which the action depended discloses the fact that it was for “materials furnished.” By section 1203 of the Code of Civil Procedure it is provided that: “No mistake or error in the…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. McClain v. HuttonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1900
  2. Humboldt Lumber Mill Co. v. CrispCalifornia Supreme Court · 1905
  3. Jewell v. McKayCalifornia Supreme Court · 1889
  4. California Portland Cement Co. v. Wentworth Hotel Co.California Court of Appeal · 1911
  5. Pacific Sash & Door Co. v. BumillerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1912

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

3Cited by11 opinions

  1. Nolte v. SmithCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1961
  2. Callahan v. Chatsworth Park, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1962
  3. Peccole v. Luce & Goodfellow, Inc.Nevada Supreme Court · 1949
  4. Wand Corp. v. San Gabriel Valley Lumber Co.California Court of Appeal · 1965
  5. McIntosh v. FungeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1930

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

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

Powered by the Exa API