Peckham v. Fox
California Court of Appeal
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtSmith, J.
This is an appeal from a judgment foreclosing a mechanic’s lien. The only objection urged by appellant’s counsel is to the attorney’s fee allowed by the court and made a lien upon the property in question. The points made by the appellant are: First, that section 1195 of the Code of Civil Procedure, providing for such fees, is unconstitutional ; second, that there is no provision in the act making the attorney’s fees a lien upon the property foreclosed. But neither point is tenable.
As to the first, tinder familiar rules of construction, there is nothing in the provisions of section 15 of…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- McIntyre v. TrautnerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1889
- Rapp v. Spring Valley Gold Co.California Supreme Court · 1888
- Monroe v. FohlCalifornia Supreme Court · 1887
- Germania Building & Loan Ass'n v. WagnerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1882
- Schallert-Ganahl Lumber Co. v. NealCalifornia Supreme Court · 1892
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Smith v. Faris-Kesl Construction Co.Idaho Supreme Court · 1915
- Shaw v. JohnstonIdaho Supreme Court · 1910
- Grace Harbor Lumber Co. v. OrtmanMichigan Supreme Court · 1916
- Barr Lumber Co. v. ShafferCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1951
- Gaster v. ColdironSupreme Court of Delaware · 1972