Bradbury v. Cronise
California Supreme Court
Appeal from the District Court, Fourteenth. Judicial District, County of Placer. The defendant Schnabel owned the Julian mine, and tho defendant Cronise made a contract with him to purchase the same, and was allowed to enter into possession of and work the same. A large number of persons, with the knowledge of Schnabel, worked on the mine for Cronise, and their wages not being paid they filed liens on the same.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the District Court, Fourteenth. Judicial District, County of Placer. The defendant Schnabel owned the Julian mine, and tho defendant Cronise made a contract with him to purchase the same, and was allowed to enter into possession of and work the same. A large number of persons, with the knowledge of Schnabel, worked on the mine for Cronise, and their wages not being paid they filed liens on the same. All the lienholders except the Lukes, Tompking, Henwood, and McCurdy assigned their demands to the plaintiff, who brought this action to enforce the same, and made Schnabel and the…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court:
This is an action to enforce a lien on a.mining claim for wages alleged to be due to laborers on the claim, and is founded on the Act of March 30th, 1868, “for securing liens of mechanics and others.” (Stats. 1867-8, p. 589.) The complaint alleges that the labor was performed on the mining claim, and this averment is not denied in the answer. It is true, there is a denial ‘‘that the plaintiff and his several assignors did work and labor for said W. H. Y. Cronise, and that the said Cronise is indebted to them for the same the several sums of money averred in the complaint;” and…
2Cited by8 opinions
- Ortega v. CorderoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1891
- Martinez v. MartinezCalifornia Supreme Court · 1953
- Asnon v. FoleyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1930
- Billings v. DrewCalifornia Supreme Court · 1878
- White v. DouglassCalifornia Supreme Court · 1886
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.