70 Cal. 437, 11450, Wiggins v. Bridge
|Citation:||70 Cal. 437, 11 P. 754|
|Opinion Judge:||McKEE, Judge|
|Party Name:||W. R. WIGGINS, Appellant, v. MATTHEW BRIDGE et al., Respondents|
|Attorney:||Gardiner & Stephenson, and Paris & Goodcell, for Appellant. Albert M. Stephens, for Respondents.|
|Judge Panel:||JUDGES: McKee, J. Sharpstein, J., and Thornton, J., concurred.|
|Case Date:||August 25, 1886|
|Court:||Supreme Court of California|
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County.
This is an appeal from a judgment in an action to foreclose a mechanic's lien.
The judgment was rendered upon a finding which shows that on the 5th of July, 1883, two of the defendants -- Bridge, as an original contractor, and Phillips, as tenant of the Southern Pacific Railroad Company, in possession of the land described in the pleadings -- entered into a building contract whereby Bridge agreed to construct upon the land a brick house according to certain plans and specifications, which he was to complete within fifty working days from the date of the contract, or forfeit ten dollars a day for every day beyond the
stipulated time, for which Phillips agreed to pay him $ 6,070, in part as work upon the building progressed, and in full upon performance of the work according to contract.
The contractor commenced to work. During its progress, the plaintiff sold and delivered to him for the work materials which were used in the building. The contractor failed to pay for them, and on the 8th of September, 1883, the plaintiff filed a claim of lien against the building.
[11 P. 755] It is alleged that at the time of filing the claim "there was due and unpaid to the contractor, as part of the contract price for the construction of the building, the sum of six hundred dollars"; and that "the building was completed on or about the 15th of September, 1883." These allegations were denied, and upon the issues raised by the denial the court finds that from time to time, as the work upon the building progressed, the owner of the building, without any notice of the claim of the plaintiff, paid to the contractor, and to the material-men and workmen on his orders, the sum of $ 5,283 for the work which had been done under the contract; that the work itself had been done in an unworkmanlike manner, and the contractor, after receiving payment for what had been done, failed and refused to...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP