Pierce v. Birkholm
California Supreme Court
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco. William T. Wallace, Judge. The facts are stated in the opinion.
1Opinion of the Court
Belcher, C.
The plaintiff and six other parties commenced actions to foreclose mechanics’ liens for labor *659and materials furnished and used in the construction of a building for the defendant Birkholm. The actions were consolidated, and tried together. The court below gave judgment in favor of the defendant, from which the plaintiffs have appealed, without any statement or bill of exceptions.
At the trial of the cause no evidence, other than documentary, was introduced by either party, and the case was submitted upon the following admissions: It was admitted that all the allegations contained in…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Willamette Steam Mills Lumbering & Manufacturing Co. v. Los Angeles College Co.California Supreme Court · 1892
- Greig v. RiordanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1893
- Yancy v. MortonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1892
- Barker v. DohertyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1892
- Dunlop v. KennedyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1894
3Cited by9 opinions
- Smith v. CameronOregon Supreme Court · 1922
- Bird v. American Surety Co. of New YorkCalifornia Supreme Court · 1917
- Burnett v. GlasCalifornia Supreme Court · 1908
- Hoffman-Marks Co. v. SpiresCalifornia Supreme Court · 1908
- State ex rel. Shropshire v. Superior CourtWashington Supreme Court · 1909
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.