Los Angeles Pressed Brick Co. v. Los Angeles Pacific Boulevard & Development Co.
Before: Taggart
Synopsis
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County and from an order denying a new trial. J. S. Noyes, Judge presiding.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
Charles L. Batcheller, Thomas C. Ridgway, and Barstcw & Variel, for Appellants.
TAGGART, J.
An action to foreclose a mechanic’s lien. Judgment for plaintiff. Appeals were taken from the judgment and an order denying a new trial.
[461]
The defendant Los Angeles Pacific Boulevard and Development Company is the owner of a brick building erected by defendants Brown
&
Alcorn as contractors, defendant William Leonard being a subcontractor for the brickwork. Plaintiff furnished brick for the construction of the building upon the order of Leonard, and in due time served notice of doing so upon the owner in accordance with the provisions of section 1184 of the Code of Civil Procedure. At the time such notice was given there remained in the hands of the owner more than enough of the contract price, still unpaid to the contractors, to satisfy plaintiff’s claim in full. The contractors, who were not notified of plaintiff’s claim, had paid Leonard, their subcontractor, all that was due him before plaintiff notified the owner.
All parties to the appeal agree that but one question of law is involved in the appeal. Appellants state this as follows: “Under the mechanics’ lien law must the contractor ‘take care of’ the claims of materialmen or employees of the subcontractor under such contractor?” Respondent states it in this wise: “Whether under the mechanics’ lien law the con-, tractor’s payment to his subcontractor in full, without notice of the materialman’s claim, prevents the materialman from collecting his claim from the owner, .the owner having had due notice, and having in hand at the time of notice the means to pay the materialman in full.” (The term “means” being evidently used in the sense of having on hand enough of the unpaid contract price.)
The right of a materialman to a lien upon the property for which he has furnished the material is of constitutional creation
(Hampton
v.
Christensen,
148 Cal. 737, [84 Pac. 200]), and is based upon the theory that he has an equitable right to payment for it from the owner of the building into which it has gone.
More from California Court of Appeal
- People v. Hill (1998)
- In Re Autumn H. (1994)
- Nwosu v. Uba (2004)
- In Re Casey D. (1999)
- Santisas v. Goodin (1998)
- Cahill v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (2011)
- People v. Rivera (2015)
- People v. Barnett (1998)
- People v. Serrano (2012)
- Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007)