Moore v. Jackson (1874) · DecisionDepot

Moore v. Jackson

Name: California Superior Court Tentative Rulings
Creator: DecisionDepot
License: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

California Supreme Court Jul 1, 1874 No. No. 4,020Published

Before: McKinstry

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a property owner is liable for a mechanic's lien for repairs authorized by the owner but performed by a prospective purchaser, as the purchaser acted as the owner's agent regarding third-party laborers and material men.

Issues

Whether a property owner is liable for a lien for repairs authorized by the owner but performed by a prospective purchaser.

Disposition. Affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“as to the material men and laborers, the latter was the agent of the former, and the estate of the former should be bound by the lien, independent of the peculiar language of the statute.”

Synopsis

Lien of Mechanics and Matebiad Men.—If a person enters into the possession of a house and lot with the consent of the owner, and makes repairs on the house by the permission of the owner, under a parol agreement with the owner to pay for such repairs, and to purchase the property, the mechanics and material men who furnish the , materials and do the work, can enforce a lien on the premises for their ' labor and materials, even if the person who makes the repairs does not effect a purchase.

Idbh.—In such case the person who makes the repairs is the agent of the owner, and the owner’s estate is hound by the lien.

By the Court, McKinstry, J.: The findings show that defendant Moulton entered into possession of the premises with the consent of defendant Jackson, and that the repairs upon the house were authorized by Jackson. The fact that Jackson expected, and Moulton agreed, that the repairs should be paid for by the latter, and that he would purchase the property, did not change the relation of these persons as to third parties. Jackson received the benefit of the repairs, which he authorized Moulton to have made; and as to the material men and laborers, the latter was the agent of the former, and the estate of the former should be bound by the lien, independent of the peculiar language of the statute.

Judgment and order affirmed.

Neither Mr. Justice Rhodes nor Mr. Justice Niles expressed an opinion.

Moore v. Jackson

AI Brief

Synopsis

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief