Blackman v. Marsicano
Synopsis
Mechanic’s Lien—Claim of Lien.—The claim of lien in this case, in stating the terms, time given, and conditions of the contract, used the words ‘ ‘ cash upon demand, in gold coin of the United States.” Held: A substantial compliance with the requirements of the statute.
Id.— Id.— Case Distinguished.—Hooper v. Flood, 54 Cal. 221, distinguished.
The Court : The claim of lien in this case, in stating the terms, time given, and conditions of the contract, used the words, “ cash upon demand, in gold coin of the United States.” This was a substantial compliance with the requirement of the statute. The case of Hooper v. Flood (54 Cal. 221) presented a statement quite different in effect from that here presented.
Judgment and order reversed, and cause remanded for a new trial.
More from California Supreme Court
- People v. Wende (1979)
- People v. Watson (1956)
- People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996)
- People v. Kelly (2006)
- Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court (1962)
- Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001)
- People v. Lewis (2021)
- In Re Estrada (1965)
- Denham v. Superior Court (1970)
- People v. Marsden (1970)