Legal Opinion

Southern California Lumber Co. v. Schmitt

California Supreme Court

Decided January 31, 1888No. 12099PublishedCited by 19 opinions

' Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County. . The facts are stated in the opinion.

1Opinion of the Court

Foote, C.

This action was, according to the original complaint filed therein, initiated for the purpose of obtaining a judgment against one Gorey, a contractor, for the amount of a bill for materials furnished him by the plaintiff, and against Charles T. Schmitt,, to foreclose a mechanic’s lien on his building, which Gorey had contracted to build, and in the construction of which the materials bought by Gorey from the plaintiff had been used. Elizabeth T. Randall was also made a party to the suit as a mortgagee of Schmitt. Finding that the contract between Gorey and Schmitt was void because it…

2Cited by19 opinions

  1. Willamette Steam Mills Lumbering & Manufacturing Co. v. Los Angeles College Co.California Supreme Court · 1892
  2. Kellogg v. HowesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1889
  3. Giant Powder Co. v. San Diego Flume Co.California Supreme Court · 1889
  4. McMenomy v. WhiteCalifornia Supreme Court · 1896
  5. First Nat'l Bank of Bridgeport v. Perris Irrigation Dist.California Supreme Court · 1895

14 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