Norton v. Bedell Engineering Co.
California Court of Appeal
1Opinion of the Court
THOMPSON (R. L.), J., pro tem.
This is an appeal from a judgment in favor of respondents Frank G. Raickle and G. W. Dulany, Jr., substituted defendants, which was following an order sustaining their objection to the introduction of evidence on the part of appellants in of their claim' for a mechanic’s lien. The objection was sustained on the ground that the complaint failed to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action for the of a mechanic’s lien.
The complaint was originally filed against the Bedell Company and a number of fictitious defendants. The defendant corporation suffered…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- McClain v. HuttonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1900
- Santa Monica Lumber & Mill Co. v. HegeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1897
- Bell v. ThompsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1905
- Wagner v. HansenCalifornia Supreme Court · 1894
- Hicks v. MurrayCalifornia Supreme Court · 1872
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- Clements v. T. R. Bechtel Co.California Supreme Court · 1954
- Lovret v. SeyfarthCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1972
- Howard v. Societa Di Unione E Beneficenza ItalianaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1944
- Peccole v. Luce & Goodfellow, Inc.Nevada Supreme Court · 1949
- Wand Corp. v. San Gabriel Valley Lumber Co.California Court of Appeal · 1965
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.