Hines v. Miller
California Supreme Court
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Tuolumne County. G. W. Nicol, Judge. The plaintiffs were laborers upon a quartz mining claim, under a per diem contract for wages payable at the end of each month. The claims of lien were filed thirty days after the cessation of labor of each claimant. Further facts are stated in the opinion of the court and in the opinion rendered upon the former appeal. (Hines v. Miller, 122 Cal. 517.)
1Opinion of the CourtHarrison, J.
—Judgment was rendered against the appellants herein upon their default for failure to answer the complaint, and they have appealed therefrom upon the judgment-roll. An appeal from the same judgment, taken by certain other defendants who had answered the complaint, was considered by this court (Hines v. Miller, 122 Cal. 517), and the judgment was affirmed. In the opinion then given the character of the action is sufficiently stated, and need not be here repeated.
The present appeal is urged upon the ground that under the provisions of section 1194 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the court was…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Pacific Mutual Life Insurance Co. v. FisherCalifornia Supreme Court · 1895
- Hines v. MillerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1898
- Kreling v. KrelingCalifornia Supreme Court · 1897
- Cent. Lumber & Mill Co. v. CenterCalifornia Supreme Court · 1895
- Painter v. PainterCalifornia Supreme Court · 1893
3Cited by5 opinions
- Metropolis Trust & Savings Bank v. BarnetCalifornia Supreme Court · 1913
- Burnett v. GlasCalifornia Supreme Court · 1908
- Hardwood Interior Co. v. BullCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1914
- Blanck v. Commonwealth Amusement Corp.California Court of Appeal · 1912
- Golden Gate Building Materials Co. v. FiremanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1928