Howe v. Schmidt
California Supreme Court
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. Charles L. Batcheller, Foster C. Wright, A. P. Thompson, and Davis, Kemp & Post, for Appellants.
1Opinion of the CourtAngellotti, J.
These are actions for the foreclosure of mechanics’ liens, which were, consolidated for the purposes of trial. George F. Howe was the original contractor, and brought his action against defendant Huida Schmidt, the owner of the property, to foreclose his lien for an alleged balance due upon a contract entered into by him and said Schmidt for the erection of a building upon her land. In this action defendant Wright, a subcontractor, and defendants Dodd, H. Raphael Co., California Hardware Co., and the Montgomery & Mullin Lumber Company, materialmen, set up their claims and sought foreclosure…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Willamette Steam Mills Lumbering & Manufacturing Co. v. Los Angeles College Co.California Supreme Court · 1892
- Riverside Water Co. v. GageCalifornia Supreme Court · 1895
- Rudel v. County of Los AngelesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1897
- Donnelly v. AdamsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1896
- West Coast Lumber Co. v. KnappCalifornia Supreme Court · 1898
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Wilcox v. SwayCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1945
- Levinson v. LindermanWashington Supreme Court · 1958
- Patten & Davies Lumber Co. v. McConvilleCalifornia Supreme Court · 1933
- Johnson v. SmithCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1929
- L. W. Blinn Lumber Co. v. CohnCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1917
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.