Joost v. Sullivan
California Supreme Court
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco and from an order denying a new trial. James M. Trout, Judge. The facts are stated in the opinion.
1Opinion of the Court
Haynes, C.
Action to foreclose subcontractors’ liens. Pending the litigation the claim of Joost Brothers was *289paid, and the only defendants served were Eugene and Kate Sullivan. The claims of Byron and Bayreutlier were sustained by the court, and from the judgment, enforcing their liens and from an order denying a new trial this appeal is prosecuted.
Eugene Sullivan was the owner, and his wife, Kate Sullivan, was made a party, the complaint alleging that she claimed some interest in the property. Eugene Sullivan died before the trial, and Kate Sullivan, having been duly appointed administratrix…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Willamette Steam Mills Lumbering & Manufacturing Co. v. Los Angeles College Co.California Supreme Court · 1892
- Giant Powder Co. v. San Diego Flume Co.California Supreme Court · 1889
- Harlan v. StufflebeemCalifornia Supreme Court · 1891
- Booth v. PendolaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1891
- Wood v. Oakland & Berkeley Rapid Transit Co.California Supreme Court · 1895
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by23 opinions
- Gem State Lumber Co. v. WittyIdaho Supreme Court · 1923
- Burnett v. GlasCalifornia Supreme Court · 1908
- Stimson Mill Co. v. Los Angles Traction Co.California Supreme Court · 1903
- Lewis v. HopperCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1956
- Hodges v. City of RoswellNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1926
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.