Rosenkranz v. Wagner
Synopsis
Appeal by the-plaintiff from the judgment-of the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco. Latimer, J.
Action of foreclosure of mechanic’s lien. In the complaint it was alleged, “that the defendant Philip Wagner is, and at all the times herein mentioned was, the owner of the land and premises situate,” etc. (Here follows the description of the premises.)
“ That prior to the twentieth day of November, 1877, said defendant, Wagner, had employed defendant, Walsh, as an original contractor, to improve, alter, and repair a certain building or dwelling-house on said lands, for him, defendant, Wagner. That defendant, Walsh, went on under said employment, and took charge of and improved, altered, and repaired said building on said land for said defendant. That under the direction, and with the knowledge of said defendant Wagner, defendant Walsh employed plaintiff to labor on said building as a tinsmith, and to furnish the materials for all the tinwork thereon, namely, tin and galvanized iron, and promised to pay said plaintiff in gold coin upon the termination of his said labor, and for his said materials furnished, what the same might be reasonably worth. That, in consideration of said promise, said plaintiff went on and performed the labor and furnished the materials, consisting of tin and galvanized iron, required in the performance of all said tin work, between the twentieth day of November and the eleventh day of December, 1877, and all said materials were actually used in the said improvement, alteration, and repair of said structure. That the amount of said labor and materials furnished were reasonably worth the sum of sixty dollars and eighteen cents; that no part of said sum has ever been paid to said plaintiff, and that there remains due said plaintiff the sum of sixty dollars and eighteen cents gold coin therefor. That on, to wit, the fifteenth day of January, 1878, said building was completed, ahd within thirty days thereafter, to wit, on the seventeenth day of January, 1878, said plaintiff filed for record with the County Recorder of said city and county, a claim in writing, containing a true statement of his demand for said work and materials, after deducting all just credits and offsets, and showing that said sum of sixty dollars and eighteen cents in gold coin was justly due to him, said plaintiff, for his said labor and materials furnished, and also setting forth in said claim the name of the owner of said premises, to wit, Philip Wagner, and also the name of the person by whom he, said plaintiff, was so employed, to wit, George Walsh; with a statement of the terms, time given, and conditions of his said contract, and also a description of the property to be charged with his lien, sufficient for identification, which claim was verified by the oath of said plaintiff and was thereupon recorded in said Recorder’s office.
The Court: The Court below found as a fact, defendants were notified orally and in writing, that plaintiff had performed work, etc., for which he claimed sixty dollars and eighteen cents, before defendants madé the payment of five hundred dollars to the contractor.
The finding is entirely without the issues made by the pleadings. The complaint fails to allege that anything was due from defendants to the original contractor when plaintiff’s lien was filed, or that defendants were notified or had any knowledge of the claim of plaintiff, prior to the payment in full of the amount due to the original contractor under his contract. The complaint contains no statement of a cause of action. (Renton v. Conley, 49 Cal. 187; Wells v. Cahn, 51 id. 423; Dingley v. Greene, 54 id. 333.)
Judgment affirmed.
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)