Legal Opinion
Munger & Munger v. McBratney
California Court of Appeal
Decided February 24, 1955No. Civ. A. 8543PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtBishop, Acting P. J.
The plaintiff unsuccessfully sought to foreclose a mechanic’s lien for work done by it under a plumbing and heating subcontract, recovery being denied on the theory that the plaintiff had filed its claim of lien too late. We have concluded that the theory was ill founded; the judgment should be reversed.
After repeated amendments, section 1187, of the Code of Civil Procedure, has become section 1193.1. Certain of its provisions are material to our problem. A subcontractor is authorized to file a claim of lien “after he has ceased to perform labor or furnish material, or both . . . and before…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Capital National Bank v. SmithCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1944
- Hammond Lumber Co. v. Barth Investment Corp.California Supreme Court · 1927
- Hammond Lumber Co. v. Barth Investment Corp.California Supreme Court · 1927
- Nevada County Lumber Co. v. JanissCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1938
- Orlandi v. GrayCalifornia Supreme Court · 1899
3Cited by4 opinions
- Grand v. GriesingerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1958
- Picerne Construction Corp. v. Castellino VillasCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2016
- Fontana Paving, Inc. v. Hedley Brothers, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1995
- Howell v. GundersonAppellate Division of the Superior Court of California · 1967