Planing Mill Co. v. Roman Cath. Bishop

This is an appeal from a judgment in plaintiff's favor in an action to foreclose a material-man's lien. Two questions are presented upon this appeal. The first relates to the issue as to whether the claim of lien was filed within the time permitted by statute for the filing of such liens. As to this question it is conceded that it has been settled in respondent's favor by the case of Hughes Mfg. Lumber Co. v.Hathaway, 174 Cal. 44, [161 P. 1159], decided since this appeal was taken. *Page 230

The other point presented upon this appeal relates to the sufficiency of the description of the property against which the plaintiff's claim of lien was filed, which is herein sought to be foreclosed as the same appears in the judgment from which this appeal is taken. Said description is as follows:

"The northerly portion of block 413-B, of the city of Bakersfield, according to the map of said city of Bakersfield, filed in the office of the county recorder of Kern county, November 25, 1898."

We are of the opinion that the appellant's contention that this description, as embodied in the judgment herein, is insufficient must be sustained. The case of Union Lumber Co. v.Simon, 150 Cal. 751, [89 P. 1077, 1081], which is chiefly relied upon by the respondent, is clearly distinguishable from the case at bar. In that case the property was described as "commencing at a point on the northerly line of Sutter Street distant 137 ft. and 6 inches from the westerly line of Scott St.; Running thence," etc. The defect in this description consisted in the fact that it did not locate the point of commencement as to whether it was easterly or westerly from Scott Street. It was thus applicable to two different pieces of property on the northerly line of Sutter Street; otherwise the description was of a rectangular piece of land of definite dimensions. The court held that such a description was aided by the statement in the claim of lien as to who was the owner or reputed owner of the land, and was thus made "sufficient for identification," which is all that is required by the statute in the claim of lien. But the court also suggested that in the action for the enforcement of such a lien the plaintiff might enlarge the description in his complaint and proofs so that the judgment would distinctly specify the land which was to be sold. The difference between the description in that case and that in the case at bar is apparent. In that case there was a description of a definite parcel of land which could be applied to either one of two locations by supplying the single word "easterly" or "westerly" which would give the description its point of beginning. But in the case at bar no description of any parcel or amount of land by metes and bounds or otherwise is given.