Bailey Ornamental Iron Co. v. Goldschmidt
California Court of Appeal
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtConrey, P. J.
Action to enforce a mechanic’s lien claimed by the plaintiff. The plaintiff appeals from the judgment.
In March, 1911, the defendant Emma M. Goldschmidt, being about to cause the erection of a dwelling-house on land owned by her in the city of Los Angeles, entered into an oral contract with the Imperial Iron & Machine Company, under which that company agreed to construct for her a certain iron balcony as a part of the proposed building. The price for the work was to be $268; no time for the payment being named in the agreement. Mrs. Goldschmidt paid an installment of this price on May 18 and…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Barnitz v. BeverlySupreme Court of the United States · 1896
- Spinney v. GriffithCalifornia Supreme Court · 1893
- Welsh v. CrossCalifornia Supreme Court · 1905
- Andrews & Johnson Co. v. AtwoodIllinois Supreme Court · 1897
- Kendall v. FaderIllinois Supreme Court · 1902
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Rose v. State of CaliforniaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1942
- King v. LeavyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1932
- Rose v. State of CaliforniaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1942