Harlan v. Stufflebeem
California Supreme Court
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Tulare County. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtHarrison, J.
Action for the foreclosure of a mechanic’s lien.
The plaintiffs contracted with the defendant StufHebeem, who was the lessee of certain lands owned by the defendants Bashore, to do the work of painting, varnishing, and graining upon some buildings which Stufiiebeem was constructing for himself upon said lands, upon the completion of which they were to receive $145.
* The main issue presented in the case was, whether the plaintiffs had completed the work according to their contract.
*511The court found that the plaintiffs had substantially complied with all the terms of said contract, and completed…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Phillip v. . GallantNew York Court of Appeals · 1875
- Sinclair v. TallmadgeNew York Supreme Court · 1861
- West Coast Lumber Co. v. NewkirkCalifornia Supreme Court · 1889
- Ligget v. SmithSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1834
3Cited by28 opinions
- Willamette Steam Mills Lumbering & Manufacturing Co. v. Los Angeles College Co.California Supreme Court · 1892
- Thomas Haverty Co. v. JonesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1921
- Title Guarantee Co. v. WrennOregon Supreme Court · 1899
- Collins v. RamishCalifornia Supreme Court · 1920
- American Type Founders' Co. v. PackerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1900
23 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.