Ingersoll v. Chaplin

California Court of Appeal Nov 1, 1932 No. Docket No. 424.Published

Before: Marks

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. Discrepancies between the names of owners or contracting parties in a mechanics' lien claim and the actual proof at trial do not constitute a fatal variance where the owner was not misled to their injury.

Issues

Whether a variance between the owner named in a mechanics' lien and the actual owners of the property invalidates the lien.
Whether a variance between the party named as the contractor in a lien and the actual contracting parties is fatal to the judgment.
Whether a deficiency judgment is supported by findings that the owners entered into contracts through authorized agents.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“This creates no sufficient variance affecting the validity of the judgment.”

“As a rule a mistake in the statement as to the name of the person with whom plaintiff contracted or by whom he was employed . . . will not defeat the lien, where there was no intention to deceive and no one has been misled to his detriment.”

MARKS, J.

This is an action to foreclose separate mechanics’ liens upon property situated in the town of Encinitas in San Diego County. Judgment was rendered in favor of the plaintiffs, and the defendants, Sidney Chaplin, Minnie Chaplin and Lallie de Loriere are here on appeal.

The liens state that Sidney Chaplin was the owner and reputed owner of the premises upon which ‘ the liens were claimed. The complaint alleges, and the court found, that Sidney Chaplin and Minnie Chaplin, as husband and wife, were the owners of the property. This creates no sufficient variance affecting the validity of the judgment. (17 Cal. Jur. 132, sec. 86, and cases cited.) In

Ah Louis

Harwood,

140 Cal. 500 [74 Pac. 41, 43], it was said: “If in good faith the claimant states the name of a reputed owner, ‘he shall not lose his lien if he shall afterward ascertain that some other person was the owner. ’

(Corbett

Chambers,

109 Cal. 178 [41 Pac. 873].) It was also there said: ‘The object of this statement in his claim is, as we have seen, to designate the person against whom he seeks to establish the lien, as well as to protect others in their dealing with the property. The purpose of this designation is to point out the individual who is to be affected thereby rather than the attribute of ownership.’ ”

The liens further state that Sidney Chaplin made the contracts either personally or through agents. The complaint alleges, and the court found, that the contracts were made by Sidney Chaplin and Minnie Chaplin. Appellants urge that this constitutes a variance fatal to the judgment. The case comes before us on the judgment-roll. We may assume that the evidence showed that while Sidney Chaplin in person actually made the contracts in question, he did so for himself and for Minnie Chaplin as her agent. This contention of appellants is answered in the ease of

Hammond Lumber Co.

Richardson,

94 Cal. App. 119 [270 Pac. 751], where it was said: “Appellant has four specifications of error, but they are all in effect stated in the

Ingersoll v. Chaplin

AI Brief

MARKS, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief