William H. Birch & Co. v. Magic Transit Co.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

E. L. Campbell, J. S. Spilman, J. B. Feehan, and Alexander G. Eells, for Appellants.

The owner had notice at the date of the lease of the intended construction of the improvements. (Santa Monica L. and M. Co. v. Hege, 119 Cal. 376; Evans v. Judson, 120 Cal. 282; Hines v. Miller, 122 Cal. 519.)

Bradley & McKinstry, and Campbell, Metson & Campbell, for Respondents.

The construction of the statute has not been passed upon in the cases cited for appellants. The owner should be allowed, in order to make the statute effective, and to prevent it from being unreasonable and unjust, to post his notice within three days after he has obtained knowledge of the actual commencement of the building.