Hotaling v. Cronise
California Supreme Court
Appeal from the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District. Hotaling, Barnstead, and Thomas filed their complaint against Cronise and Hart, December 12th, 1850, averring that during the summer of 1850, the plaintiffs, at the request of Cronise, furnished piles and other materials, and did work, to the amount of $2785, for the erection of a wharf on property then owned by Cronise, on Battery street, between Jackson and Pacific streets, and joining property owned by one…
Read the full summary
Appeal from the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District. Hotaling, Barnstead, and Thomas filed their complaint against Cronise and Hart, December 12th, 1850, averring that during the summer of 1850, the plaintiffs, at the request of Cronise, furnished piles and other materials, and did work, to the amount of $2785, for the erection of a wharf on property then owned by Cronise, on Battery street, between Jackson and Pacific streets, and joining property owned by one Dupease, in San Francisco; that Hart afterwards purchased the property from Cronise, and paid the plaintiffs $1000 on…
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Murray
This was *63an action to enforce a mechanic’s lien. It appears from the record, that the work in question was performed for the defendant Cronise, from whom the defendants purchased. Upon the trial of the cause in the Court below, the defendants offered themselves as witnesses for each other, to prove that the work was performed in an unworkmanlike manner, and that nothing was due to the plaintiffs. This testimony was rejected by the Court. The 303 and 304 sections of the Old Practice Act provide, that a party may be examined on behalf of his co-plaintiff, or co-defendant, but the examination so…
2Cited by14 opinions
- Tibbetts v. MooreCalifornia Supreme Court · 1863
- Chamberlain v. City of LewistonIdaho Supreme Court · 1912
- Harrisburg Lumber Co. v. WashburnOregon Supreme Court · 1896
- Willamette Steam Mills Co. v. KremerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1891
- Tredinnick v. Red Cloud Consolidated Mining Co.California Supreme Court · 1887
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.