Patten & Davies Lumber Co. v. Gibson

ALLEN, P. J.

This is an action to foreclose a mechanic’s lien by a materialman. The contract was admitted to be void for failure to record.

The court finds that the material was furnished and used for the construction of the building, and the only reason the judgment was given for respondents was on account of an error of description in the notice of lien. It appears from the complaint filed, and is not denied by the answer, that the defendant, Dora May Gibson, was the owner of lot 4 in block “0” of the Pellissier tract, in the city of Los Angeles. That on the twenty-ninth day of September, 1905, she, as such owner, entered into a contract for the erection and construction of a dwelling-house upon the property above described for an agreed price of $2,000; that this contract was subscribed by the parties thereto and filed for record, but no plans and specifications referred to in said contract as being attached thereto were in fact attached to said contract or filed; that the contractor entered upon the performance of his contract and completed the same according to the terms thereof. That during the progress of the work the contractor purchased of plaintiff material of the value of $477.63, which was in fact used in the construction of said house, and the same has not been paid for. That within due time plaintiff filed its notice of lien, which, among other things, contained “a description of the property sought to be charged with its lien sufficient for identification, to wit, the real property and

[25]

building hereinbefore described; that said property was erroneously described in said claim of lien as lot 4, block 6 of the Pellissier tract, but that there is no block 6 in said Pellissier tract, and said defendant Dora May Gibson does not own any other property in said Pellissier tract” except lot 4 in block “C.”

The court finds that there are buildings other than the building belonging to said Dora May Gibson located on block “C” of the Pellissier tract; and, further, that the sum of $500 was in the hands of defendant Gibson, due the contractor, at the time of the filing of the complaint in this proceeding, but which subsequent thereto she paid to the contractor.

The only question involved upon the appeal, therefore, is as to the sufficiency of the identification of the property contained in the notice of lien. “If the description (in the notice of lien) identifies the property by reference to the facts, that is, if it points clearly to a piece of property and there is no other one that will answer the description, it is sufficient.”