Roystone Co. v. Darling
California Supreme Court
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. Bicksler & Smith, and Bicksler, Smith & Parke, for Appellant. Irwin, White & Rosecrans, and Randall & Bartlett, for Respondents Thomas Darling et al. Ernest E. Nichols, for Respondent Joseph Musto Sons-Keenan Co.
1Opinion of the Court
[EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] This is an appeal taken from the judgment within sixty days after its entry, the American Surety Company being the sole appellant. The judgment was rendered in a consolidated action to foreclose mechanics' liens. Nineteen separate complaints embracing twenty-two claims of lien were included in the order of consolidation.
On June 19, 1912, the defendant Thomas Darling, being the owner of a lot in Santa Monica, Los Angeles County, entered into a contract with the…
2Cases cited31 opinions
- City of Pasadena v. StimsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1891
- Greig v. RiordanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1893
- Martin v. BeckerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1915
- Kellogg v. HowesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1889
- People v. MatuszewskiCalifornia Supreme Court · 1903
26 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by36 opinions
- Roberts v. Security Trust & Savings BankCalifornia Supreme Court · 1925
- People v. HolderCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1921
- Hart v. City of Beverly HillsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1938
- Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. v. N. O. Nelson Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1934
- Loop Lumber Co. v. Van Loben SelsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1916
31 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.