Pacific Paving Co. v. Vizelich

CHIPMAN, P. J.

Appeal from a judgment in an action to foreclose a street-paving lien. A general demurrer to the complaint was overruled with leave to answer. The court

[282]

found that subsequently the parties filed the following stipulation :—

“It is stipulated and agreed that the defendants in the above-entitled actions need not file an answer in said actions, but that the said actions shall abide the result of the action of the Pacific Paving Company against J. L. Mowbray, 5163, and whatever judgment may be finally entered in said actions shall also be entered in each of the above-entitled cases, whether the same be in favor of the plaintiff or

defendants;

and if in favor of the plaintiff, then in each ease according to the prayer of the complaint.

“Dated April 23rd, 1897.

“Jas. A. Louttit,

“Attorney for Plaintiff.

“F. H. Gould, James H.

&

J. E. Budd,

“Attorneys for Defendants. ”

That judgment was finally entered in favor of plaintiff in the action referred to in said stipulation, and on these findings the court entered judgment for plaintiff “for the sum of $107.02, being the amount of principal and interest due on assessment against the lot in the complaint set forth, together with the further sum of fifteen dollars attorneys’ fees of plaintiff herein and $14.80 costs in this action.”

Appellant makes two objections to the judgment: 1. That it is not supported either by the complaint or by the stipulation ; and, 2. That the court has failed to find all the material facts.

1. The insufficiency of the alleged facts is grounded in part upon the decision in

Buckman

v.