Legal Opinion

Bowen v. Aubrey

California Supreme Court

Decided July 1, 1863PublishedCited by 23 opinions

Appeal from the Fifteenth Judicial District. The facts are stated in the opinion.

1Opinion of the CourtCrocker, J.

This is an action to enforce a mechanics’ hen. The defendant Aubrey entered into a contract with Packard, Bayley & Simpkins, also defendants, to erect a building, known as the “ Marysville Water Works,” agreeing therein not to sublet any part of the work without the written permission of the latter. The contract also contained the following agreement on the part or Aubrey: “ The said first party hereby agrees he will not incumber er suffer to be incumbered the said building or lot on which it is erected, by any mechanics’ hens or debts of material, labor-men, contractors, sub-contractors, or…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Green v. PalmerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1860
  2. Benedict v. Danbury & Norwalk RailroadSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1856
  3. Easterly v. Bassignano & LarcoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1862

3Cited by23 opinions

  1. Brooks v. StateSupreme Court of Delaware · 1911
  2. Levy v. Magnolia Lodge, No. 29, I. O. O. F.California Supreme Court · 1895
  3. Kellogg v. HowesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1889
  4. Jarvis v. State BankSupreme Court of Colorado · 1896
  5. Bentz Plumbing & Heating v. FavaloroCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1982

18 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