Union Lumber Co. v. Morgan

ANGELLOTTI, J.

These are appeals by defendants Mary E. Webster and Rose E. Janes from a judgment and from an order denying their motion for a new trial in two actions for the foreclosure of alleged mechanics’ liens on certain real property situated in the city of Bakersfield, which were consolidated in the lower court. The claims of liens were for materials furnished one A. E. Morgan, a contractor, to be used by him in the construction of a dwelling-house for defendant Mary E. Webster on said land, the contract between him and said Webster being invalid because, being for an amount exceeding one thousand dollars, it had not been filed in the county recorder’s office as required by law. Said contractor was a party defendant in said actions, defaulted therein, and has not appealed from the judgment. The only relief granted by the judgment so far as defendants Webster and Janes are concerned, was the making of the amount found due plaintiffs, with costs, a lien upon the property and the building constructed thereon, and the provision for the sale of such property and the application of the proceeds to the payment of such amounts. It is not questioned that the findings of the court to the effect that the defendant Janes about the time of the making of the contract.

[724]

by defendant Webster with Morgan transferred all her interest in said property to said Webster are correct, or that, as declared by the judgment, said defendant Janes “has no right, title or interest in said premises or any part thereof.”

1. The complaint of the Union Lumber Company embraced three causes of action, one being for $180.20 for lumber furnished by it to said Morgan to be used in said building, and the other two being upon claims for materials furnished by others and assigned to it. As to the lumber so furnished by plaintiff, the complaint alleged that the same was in fact used by said Morgan in the construction of said building. The trial court found this allegation to be true. It is claimed that this finding is not sufficiently supported by the evidence. We have examined the evidence upon this point. While Morgan’s positive testimony on direct examination to the effect that all of the lumber was used in the construction of the building was somewhat shaken on cross-examination as to a portion of the materials, we think that there was enough in the testimony to legally support the conclusion of the trial court.