Acme Lumber Co. v. Wessling
California Court of Appeal
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco denying a motion for a new trial. George A. Sturtevant, Judge. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtLennon, P. J.
This is an appeal by the plaintiff from an order denying a new trial in an action to foreclose a mechanic’s lien.
The claim of lien was made and filed by Hubbs & Lear as original contractors and then assigned to the plaintiff. The contract upon which the claim of lien is founded is stated in the claim of lien to be, in substance, as follows:
Hubbs & Lear agreed with the defendant Faris to alter and repair a certain building or buildings on certain premises reputed to be owned by the defendant Wessling. By the terms of the contract, as stated in the claim of lien, “said Hobbs & Lear were to…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Castagnino v. BallettaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1889
- Santa Monica Lumber & Mill Co. v. HegeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1897
- Farron v. . SherwoodNew York Court of Appeals · 1858
- Kritzer v. Tracy Engineering Co.California Court of Appeal · 1911
- Star Mill and Lumber Co. v. PorterCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1906
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Mott v. WrightCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1919
- Blanck v. Commonwealth Amusement Corp.California Court of Appeal · 1912
- Consolidated Lumber Co. v. Bosworth, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1919
- Richmond Sanitary Co. v. FranklinCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1932