Bothum v. Kreis

KOFORD, P. J.

Plaintiff obtained a judgment and decree of foreclosure of a materialman’s mechanic lien against the property of the appellants.

The sole contention on appeal is that the plaintiff’s claim of lien is invalid betiause of its many faults of description of the appellants’ property against which the lien is claimed.

The appellants’ said property is correctly described as follows: Lot five (5), block twelve (12), Brooklyn Heights Ganahl Tract, as per map thereof recorded in book 22, page 17 of miscellaneous records of Los Angeles County, California, said premises being known as 2436 Folsom Street, Los Angeles, California.

The description in the claim of lien gave the street number wrong, omitted to give the number of the tract block, omitted the word “Ganahl” in the name of the tract and referred to book 22 of maps instead of to book 22 of miscellaneous records. It read as follows: “2546 Folsom street, Los Angeles, California, and which premises claimant is informed and believes to be described as lot five, Brooklyn Heights Tract, as per map thereof recorded in book 22, page 17 of maps, records of Los Angeles County, California. ’ ’

The other statements required by law to be incorporated in the claim of lien are not said to be in any way lacking.

Appellants claim the lien does not contain a description of the property “sufficient for identification” as is required by the terms of the Code of Civil Procedure, section 1187.

[685]

Appellants cite several decisions upon the sufficiency of the description, but these decisions were rendered before the adoption of Code of Civil Procedure, section 1203a, in 1907 (Stats. 1907, p.

858).

The law of that section was moved into section 1203 in 1911 (Stats. 1911, p. 1319), and has since remained there. The intent of Code of Civil Procedure, section 1203, is expressed in

Ogram

v.

Welchoff,