65 Cal. 353, 7,805, O'Donnell v. Kramer

Docket Nº:7,805
Citation:65 Cal. 353, 4 P. 204
Party Name:JAMES O'DONNELL ET AL., RESPONDENTS, v. HENRY KRAMER AND THE BENICIA WATER CO., APPELLANTS
Attorney:L. B. Mizner, and George A. Lamont, for Appellants. Joseph McKenna, for Respondents.
Case Date:June 28, 1884
Court:Supreme Court of California
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 353

65 Cal. 353

4 P. 204

JAMES O'DONNELL ET AL., RESPONDENTS,

v.

HENRY KRAMER AND THE BENICIA WATER CO., APPELLANTS

No. 7,805

Supreme Court of California Department Two

June 28, 1884

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Solano County.

The defendant Kramer was a contractor, and agreed with the defendant, the Benicia Water Co., to construct a reservoir, but before the completion of the contract abandoned the work. Kramer was indebted to the plaintiffs for work done on the reservoir, and each filed a lien on the property of the defendant.

The action was brought to enforce the lien.

COUNSEL:

L. B. Mizner, and George A. Lamont, for Appellants.

Joseph McKenna, for Respondents.

OPINION

The remaining facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

THE COURT.

Action to enforce laborers' liens. The complaint did not aver that any money was due the contractor, but the answer presented that issue, and the court found thereon. We therefore think the case is within section 580 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The court found that the amount due the contractor when he abandoned the contract was one hundred and ninety dollars, but gave judgments for plaintiffs for the full amount due them. This...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP