McCormick v. Los Angeles City Water Co.
California Supreme Court
Appeal from the District Court of the Seventeenth District, Los Angeles County Judgment was for plaintiff. „ Defendants moved for a new trial, which was denied, and from the judgment and the order denying a new trial, defendants appealed. The other facts are stated in the opinion.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the District Court of the Seventeenth District, Los Angeles County Judgment was for plaintiff. „ Defendants moved for a new trial, which was denied, and from the judgment and the order denying a new trial, defendants appealed. The other facts are stated in the opinion. The work performed by the plaintiff was not of a character to entitle him to a lien under the Act of March 30, 1868. This Act, being in derogation of the common law, and creating extraordinary rights and liabilities, is to be strictly construed. (Davis v. Livingston, 29 Cal. 283; Walker v. Hauss Hijo, 1 Id. 188;…
1Opinion of the CourtCbockett, J.
The only question in this-case which merits discussion is, whether or not, under the Act of March 30, 1868 (Statutes 1767-8, p. 590) the plaintiff is entitled to a lien on the defendant’s reservoir for the value of his services rendered in cooking for the men employed in constructing it. The proof shows that the plaintiff was employed by the contractor, or Superintendent, to cook for the men engaged in excavating the reservoir, and that the cooking was done on the ground as the work progressed. But the fact that the cooking was performed at that particular place is entitled to no…
2Cited by20 opinions
- Mining Co. v. CullinsSupreme Court of the United States · 1881
- French v. PowellCalifornia Supreme Court · 1902
- Tsutakawa v. KumamotoWashington Supreme Court · 1909
- City of Alpena ex rel. Besser v. Title Guaranty & Surety Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1909
- Thompson v. Wise Boy Mining & Milling Co.Idaho Supreme Court · 1903
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.