Hammond Lumber Co. v. Barth Investment Corp.

SEAWELL, J.

This appeal, which is from the judgment-roll, involves some questions of law similar to those decided in

Hammond Lumber Co.

v.

Barth Investment Corp., ante,

p. 601 [262 Pac. 29], and as to such questions that case is decisive. Carl Heilman and Anna Heilman were owners of a lot situated in the city of Los Angeles. C. A. Barth and Barth Investment Corporation contracted with said owners to erect upon said lot a flat at the cost of $13,500 to said owners. The action was commenced to foreclose a materialman’s lien and for a personal judgment against said contractors in the sum of $3,000.17. Judgment went by default against said contractors, but in favor of respondents Heilman for costs of suit. This appeal is taken from that portion of the judgment entered in favor of said respondents.

The questions presented are whether or not the asserted lien of appellant, the materialman, was filed' within the statutory time prescribed by section 1187 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and also as to the eonclusiveness of certain ultimate findings which are in conflict with certain findings of probative facts. That question is dependent upon the time the building was completed, inasmuch as the owner neglected to file for record notice of the completion of said

[608]

improvement contract or.a cessation of labor thereon as provided by said section 1187,

supra.

The building contract provided for certain electrical construction or equipment as a part of the building. The electrical work was subcontracted, but the subcontractor, soon after entering upon the performance of his contract, abandoned work thereunder and left it, as found by the court, in “a partially incomplete and unfinished condition.” Thereafter the original contractors employed an electrical contractor, one Ingraham, to complete said work. The court further found, as set forth in finding Vila, that “The said Ingraham, while said owners were in the use,, occupation and possession of said structure, did 95 hours’ work upon said Heilman flats to correct and complete said electrical work in accord with the plans and specifications and the requirements of the city ordinances of the city of Los Angeles at a reasonable cost of $260.61; that said work was done partially in July, 1922, and was necessary to correct and complete the work in accordance with the plans and specifications; that said work consisted generally of putting in more and heavier wires, and drawing out wires not heavy enough to carry the load; and putting in necessary materials to correct and complete said work; that said work done by the said Ingraham was finished on the eleventh day of July, 1922, except six hours’ work that was done on August 16, 1922, and five hours’work on August 17, 1922. That without the work done by said Ingraham, the city electrician’s office of the city of Los Angeles refused to accept said work and furnish a final inspector's certificate; that said acceptance by the city and the final certificate of acceptance was not issued by the city until after the 7th day of August, 1922. The original contract for the construction of said building contained the following: ‘All work to be installed in accordance with city ordinances furnishing electrical inspector’s certificate before work will be accepted.’ The court finds that the above work constituted a trivial imperfection; that the contract cost of construction of said flat was $13,500 and that the original contract cost for the installation of the electrical work was $357.00. The city permit granted to said Ingraham to do his work was dated and issued June 5, 1922.”