Cohn v. Wright
California Supreme Court
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Tulare County. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtPaterson, J.
This is an action to foreclose a material-man's lien.
It is alleged in the complaint that the barn and corral mentioned in the notice of lien were completed on the twenty-fifth day of November, 1889, and that the storeroom had not been completed because the defendants had abandoned the work and did not intend to complete it. The defendants denied that the barn or corral was completed at any time subsequent to November 22, 1889, and alleged that the storeroom was completed before said date.
The court failed to find on the issues thus raised. The only finding on these issues is as follows: “ That…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Holmes v. RichetCalifornia Supreme Court · 1880
- Tredinnick v. Red Cloud Consolidated Mining Co.California Supreme Court · 1887
- Bottomly v. RectorCalifornia Supreme Court · 1852
- Hooper v. FloodCalifornia Supreme Court · 1880
- Houghton v. BlakeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1855
3Cited by12 opinions
- Clements v. T. R. Bechtel Co.California Supreme Court · 1954
- Ensele v. JolleyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1922
- Chemung Mining Co. v. HanleyIdaho Supreme Court · 1904
- Childs v. State of CaliforniaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1983
- John A. Roebling Sons Co. v. Bear Valley Irrigation Co.California Supreme Court · 1893
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.