Rosenkranz v. Wagner
California Supreme Court
Appeal by the-plaintiff from the judgment-of the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco. Latimer, J. Action of foreclosure of mechanic’s lien. In the complaint it was alleged, “that the defendant Philip Wagner is, and at all the times herein mentioned was, the owner of the land and premises situate,” etc.
Read the full summary
Appeal by the-plaintiff from the judgment-of the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco. Latimer, J. Action of foreclosure of mechanic’s lien. In the complaint it was alleged, “that the defendant Philip Wagner is, and at all the times herein mentioned was, the owner of the land and premises situate,” etc. (Here follows the description of the premises.) “ That prior to the twentieth day of November, 1877, said defendant, Wagner, had employed defendant, Walsh, as an original contractor, to improve, alter, and repair a certain building or dwelling-house on said lands, for him,…
1Opinion of the Court
The Court:
The Court below found as a fact, defendants were notified orally and in writing, that plaintiff had performed work, etc., for which he claimed sixty dollars and eighteen cents, before defendants madé the payment of five hundred dollars to the contractor.
The finding is entirely without the issues made by the pleadings. The complaint fails to allege that anything was due from defendants to the original contractor when plaintiff’s lien was filed, or that defendants were notified or had any knowledge of the claim of plaintiff, prior to the payment in full of the amount due to the…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Wiggins v. BridgeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1886
- McFadden v. StarkSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1893
- Nason v. JohnCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1905
- Wilson v. BarnardCalifornia Supreme Court · 1885