Shuffleton v. Hill (1880) · DecisionDepot

Shuffleton v. Hill

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

California Supreme Court Oct 25, 1880 No. No. 6,648Published

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. A laborer's lien statute enacted after the execution of a contract cannot retroactively alter the contract's payment terms or create a lien where no money was payable to the contractor at the time of filing.

Issues

Whether a subsequent lien statute can modify the payment terms of a pre-existing contract.
Whether a laborer can enforce a lien if no money was due to the contractor under the contract at the time of filing.

Disposition. Reversed and remanded

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The terms of that contract can not be considered as changed by that act.”

“if, by the terms of that contract, no money was payable to Greenlaw at the time the liens were filed, plaintiff had no lien to be enforced.”

Synopsis

Appeal from a judgment for the plaintiff in the Eighth District Court in and for the County of Humboldt. Haines, J.

The Court: The contract under which the logs in question in this suit were cut was made April 10, 1876, by which Greenlaw was 'to cut and deliver logs at certain specified times and places, receiving compensation at specified rates and times, as logs were delivered. The act under which plaintiff claims a lien as a laborer upon the logs was passed March 30,1878. The terms of that contract can not be considered as changed by that act. Plaintiff certainly has no more rights as to what money was due than Greenlaw, or his assignee would have had; and if, by the terms of that contract, no money was payable to Greenlaw at the time the liens were filed, plaintiff had no lien to be enforced.

Judgment and order reversed, and cause remanded for a new trial.

Shuffleton v. Hill

AI Brief

Synopsis

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief