L. W. Blinn Lumber Co. v. Walker

GRAY, C.

This is a mechanic’s lien foreclosure case. The defendant Walker, the owner of the building, had judgment on the theory that his contract with the contractors, his codefendants, was valid under the statute, and that a memorandum thereof had been duly recorded, and that nothing remained due thereunder to the contractors. The plaintiff ap

[64]

peals from the judgment and from an order denying it a new trial.

The defendant Walker, as the owner, entered into a builder’s contract with the defendants Y. Wankowski & Co., builders. Said contract was dated October 26, 1895, and was executed in three parts. Part 1 contained the agreements and covenants of the parties, and was duly signed by them. Part 2 consisted of specifications referred to in the first part as signed by the parties, and was in fact so signed. Part 3 consisted of the plans and drawings also referred to in the first part, and bore on its face an inscription as follows: “'These plans from 1 to 6 are the plans referred to in our contract dated October 26, A. D. 1895.” This inscription was duly signed by the parties. After the signing of the contract, as stated, a verbatim copy of the first part including the signatures, with a copy of the second part exclusive of the signatures, and a sunprint copy bearing a photographic representation of the third part except the signatures, were attached together, and this copy of the several parts of the contract was marked “Memorandum of a contract,” and on the twenty-ninth day of October, 1895, filed with the county recorder. The originals were retained in the office of the architect. The foregoing facts appeared at the trial. The document marked “Memorandum of a contract” was introduced in evidence by the plaintiff, marked exhibit “A,” and the defendant Walker put the said originals in evidence also. The property on which the building was to be erected was described in the first part of the contract as “on the corner of Hope and Adams street, in the city of Los Angeles, state of California, said building to be erected on the north side of Adams street.” The drawings and plans, which were a part of the contract, represented the house as facing the longer way on Adams street, with a veranda the entire length of the Adams street front. One end of the house is shown to front on Hope street, and in the drawing of the Hope street front, standing in Hope street facing the house, the veranda appears to the left of the drawing, which establishes that the house, being on the north side of Adams street, must be on the northwest corner of Hope and Adams streets. The drawings also show just where the house is located with reference to the streets, property lines, etc. It was stipulated in open court,