Johnson v. Smith

HOUSER, Acting P. J.

This is an appeal by the defendants from a judgment rendered against them in an action to foreclose a mechanic’s lien.

Appellants urge that the claim of lien was invalid because it failed to comply with the requirement of the statute that (among other things) it contain “a general statement of the kind of work done or materials furnished.” (Sec. 1187, Code Civ. Proc.) An examination of the claim of lien upon which the action depended discloses the fact that it was for “materials furnished.” By section 1203 of the Code of Civil Procedure it is provided that: “No mistake or error in the statement of the demand, . . . shall invalidate the lien, unless the court finds that such mistake or error . . . was made with the intent to defraud, or the court shall find that an innocent third party, without notice, direct or constructive, has since the claim was filed, become the

bona fide

owner of the property liened upon, and that the notice of claim was so deficient that it did not put the party upon further inquiry in any manner.”

If it be conceded that the claim of lien for “materials furnished” was defective in that it contained no

[754]

specification of the “kind” of materials, since by the findings of the trial court it does not appear that the error was made with “intent to defraud,” or that an innocent third party suffered by reason of such error, it is clear that the defect is not of vital importance. Furthermore, notwithstanding the effect of some of the authorities to which appellants direct attention, it appears that even before the enactment of section 1203 of the Code of Civil Procedure, in construing an earlier and somewhat similar lien statute, the rule had been announced in the ease of

McLain

v.

Hutton,

131 Cal. 132, 136 [63 Pac. 182]; that “it was unnecessary to state specifically the kind of materials furnished or the prices of the several items.” (Citing authorities.) See, also,

Jewell

v.