Conner v. Pacific Ready Cut Homes, Inc.

PARKER, J.,

pro

tem.

The case above entitled was consolidated for trial with some twenty-five other cases involving the same property and the same questions. Pursuant to the stipulation of counsel the determination of this, ease concludes the others. In some of the cases the defendant above named was the plaintiff, with some of the individual plaintiffs in the remaining cases made defendants. The cases wherein the status of the present defendant and appellant was defendant were in the nature of actions to quiet title; the cases wherein the present defendant appeared as plaintiff were actions to foreclose liens upon the respective parcels of property described.

In all of the actions, however, as far as this appellant is concerned, the main question was the validity of the asserted

[555]

claim of lien. We may remark, in passing, that the record comes before us in a most unsatisfactory manner. Appellant presents but one question, namely, the claim of estoppel as against the original owner and contractor. Tet the findings disclose that the trial court made several general findings, unquestioned here, which might support the judgment even though it be found that the court was in error on the only point presented to us for determination. How•'ever, as it will hereinafter appear, it is not necessary to catalog the findings or detail the extent thereof. We will confine ourselves to thé one point urged and if an examination thereinto discloses that the trial court was not in error appellant concedes that the judgment should be affirmed. Tet, by way of forewarning, in case sufficient has not already been said by all of the appellate courts and by the Supreme Court on the subject, it may be well to call the attention of the bar to the fact that the mere mechanical perfecting of an appeal is not all that is required in order that the reviewing court may examine carefully into extended volumes of clerks’ and reporters’ transcripts.

Coming directly to the controversy before us, a brief summary of the facts will better serve to illustrate the 'claims made. Milton Hesse was a contractor and builder in the county of Los Angeles. His activities encompassed many projects and covered a variety of enterprises, though mostly confined to the building and selling of residences. For some time prior to the transaction under discussion he had dealt with the appellant, procuring from the latter building materials arid supplies for use in his various projects. In the summer of 1926 he began the construction of 'the houses on the properties here involved. The record before us falters somewhat in the presentation of the actual facts at this point. Some doubt is cast upon the claim that materials were delivered to the properties. It is shown that a considerable quantity of lumber was delivered to one of the lots of the tract, but likewise is there evidence to the effect that some of this was carted away to distant work and the general finding that all of this material was not used in the buildings seems to have support in the evidence. For the purposes of the appeal it is admitted that all work ceased on the buildings, as far as Hesse was concerned, on or about the 2d of November, 1926, and that the finding