Legal Opinion

Jewell v. McKay

California Supreme Court

Decided December 20, 1889No. 12480PublishedCited by 24 opinions

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Humboldt County, and from an order refusing a new trial. The facts are stated in the opinion.

1Opinion of the Court

Hayne, C. —

This was a suit to foreclose eleven mechanics’ liens, which are set forth in separate counts of tiie complaint. The liens claimed were for labor and materials furnished to McKay & Harmon in the alteration and repair of a building owned by them. The ground upon which the building stood did not belong to McKay & Harmon, but belonged to one Ricks, whose interest was sought to be charged, on the theory that he had knowledge of the work," but did not give notice that he would not be responsible .therefor, as required by section 1192 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The trial court gave…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Davis v. LivingstonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1865
  2. Hills v. OhligCalifornia Supreme Court · 1883
  3. Heston v. MartinCalifornia Supreme Court · 1858

3Cited by24 opinions

  1. McClain v. HuttonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1900
  2. Title Guarantee Co. v. WrennOregon Supreme Court · 1899
  3. Thompson v. Wise Boy Mining & Milling Co.Idaho Supreme Court · 1903
  4. Prince v. HillCalifornia Supreme Court · 1915
  5. Lanier v. LovettArizona Supreme Court · 1923

19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API