Hogan v. Bigler
California Court of Appeal
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtCooper, P. J.
Plaintiffs recovered judgment, foreclosing a materialman’s lien on the premises described in the complaint, belonging to defendant Louisa Bigler.
It is required by the code (Code Civ. Proc., sec. 1187) that the claim or notice of lien filed by one claiming to have furnished materials which were used in the building or structure, shall state, among other things, “the name of the person to whom he furnished the materials.” In this ease the claim of lien stated that the lumber was sold and furnished to J. J. Crawford, and the complaint so alleges. The evidence shows without conflict that the…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Santa Monica Lumber & Mill Co. v. HegeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1897
- Wagner v. HansenCalifornia Supreme Court · 1894
- P. A. Buell & Co. v. BrownCalifornia Supreme Court · 1900
- Hooper v. FloodCalifornia Supreme Court · 1880
- Madera Flume & Trading Co. v. KendallCalifornia Supreme Court · 1898
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Peccole v. Luce & Goodfellow, Inc.Nevada Supreme Court · 1949
- Wand Corp. v. San Gabriel Valley Lumber Co.California Court of Appeal · 1965
- Norton v. Bedell Engineering Co.California Court of Appeal · 1928
- Shafer v. Los Serranos Co.California Court of Appeal · 1932
- Riggen v. PerkinsIdaho Supreme Court · 1926
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.