Bryan v. Abbott

HAYNES, C.

Action brought to enforce a lien for work and materials in laying cement sidewalk and curb and constructing cement steps on the sidewalk leading up to the doorways.

Defendants severally demurred to the second amended complaint, the demurrers were sustained, and, plaintiff failing to amend, judgment of dismissal was entered and plaintiff appeals.

The contract was made, the work performed and notice of lien filed by William McDonald, who assigned his claim and demand to the plaintiff. The demurrer is general and special.

1. The notice or claim of hen stated “that Seth Abbott is the name of the reputed owner of said premises, and caused and requested said William McDonald to perform said labor and furnish said materials”; and the complaint alleges: “That at all the times herein mentioned said defendant, Seth Abbott,

[224]

was the owner and reputed owner and in possession of and personally occupied the following described real property/’ describing it.

Respondent contends that the recorded notice of lien is insufficient because it does not state the name of the owner of the ¡premises sought to be charged with the lien.

It is sufficient if the name of the reputed owner only is given.

(Corbett v. Chambers,

109 Cal. 178, 184.) The case of

Santa Cruz Rock Pav. Co. v. Lyons,

117 Cal. 212,

1

cited by respondent, does not either directly or indirectly hold that the recorded notice of lien must state the name of the owner, but the reasoning of the case and the conclusion reached is entirely consistent with

Corbett v. Chambers, supra,

where it was said: “The provision therein that the claimant shall give the name of the owner or reputed owner, if known, implies that, if he does not know the name of the owner, he may state this fact, and perfect his lien without naming an owner