Booth v. Pendola
Synopsis
Mechanic’s Lien — Joint Lien upon Separate Buildings — Unrecorded Contracts. —• A joint lien for labor done and materials furnished may he filed against two separate buildings erected upon the same lot, though erected at different times and under different unrecorded contracts between the owner and the same original contractor.
Id. — Claim oe Lien — Specification of Labor and Materials for Each Building — Postponement of Lien. — The failure of the claimant to specify in his claim of lien the amount of labor and material furnished for each building merely has the effect to postpone his lien, and to give precedence to other specific liens upon each building, and is of no concern to the owner of the lot.
Id.—Foreclosure—Pleading — Finding — Value of Materials and Labor — Agreed Price — Void Contract. —An allegation in the complaint and a finding as to the value of labor done and materials furnished to a contractor for the erection of buildings under void unrecorded contracts is essential to support a judgment of foreclosure of a lien therefor, and it is not sufficient to allege merely what amounts the contractor agreed to pay for the labor and materials furnished for each building.
Id. •—Evidence of Value — Contract Price — Unrecorded Contract.— Although the original contract is unrecorded, and therefore void, the contract price agreed upon between the original contractor, as the agent of the owner, and the material-men and laborers, is prima facie evidence of the value of the materials furnished and labor performed, and would support a finding of value.
Id. — Pleading—Uniting of Liens — Separate Statement. —Where several mechanics’ liens are united in one complaint, and there is a distinct statement of the facts as to each lien, there is a sufficient separate statement of each cause of action, though they are not numbered or otherwise formally designated.
Id.—Competency of Witness — Estates of Deceased Persons.—The claimant of a mechanic’s lien against buildings erected by a deceased person is a competent witness to testify to facts accruing before the death of the owner, in an action against the representative of his estate.
Id. — “Claim” against Estate — Proceeding in Rem — Construction of Code. — An action to enforce a mechanic’s lien is in the nature of a proceeding in rem, in which no personal judgment can be recovered against the estate of the deceased owner payable in due course of administration, and the Hen is not a “claim” against the estate within the meaning of subdivision 3 of section 1880 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
The Court. This is an action brought by plaintiffs having several liens of mechanics and material-men against property owned by Péndola, deceased, in his lifetime.
The findings show that Péndola entered into a written agreement with one Hamilton on March 29, 1887, for [40]the construction of the Western Hotel, in the city of Santa Barbara, and on the 15th of June entered into another contract with said Hamilton to build a cottage near said hotel and on the same lot. Neither of these contracts was recorded. Belt & Co. furnished materials for both buildings, for which Hamilton agreed to pay a reasonable price. The court finds that the reasonable value of the materials furnished by them was $363.99. On May 2, 1887, Hamilton entered into an agreement with Backus & Heyl, by the terms of which the latter were to paint the hotel for the sum of $365, and the cottage for the sum of $135. The court finds that of these sums $131.71 remain unpaid. Lightner & Buckingham furnished materials for and performed certain work on the cottage, for which Hamilton was to pay the sum of $335, and performed certain work on and furnished materials for the hotel, for which they were to receive the sum of $975, of which the sum of $535.35 remains due and unpaid.
1. The claims of lien filed by Backus & Heyl and Lightner &.Buckingham segregate and specify the amounts which they were to be paid on each building, and state the total of the amounts paid to them, and the balance due on both buildings. It is not stated, either in the complaint or in the findings, how much remain due on each of the buildings, and the question is presented whether a joint lien can be filed against two buildings where they are separate structures which have been erected at different times, and under different contracts between the owner and the original contractor. It seems to be conceded that a joint lien may be filed against two buildings erected at the same time and under the same contract. We think there can be no doubt that such is the case; and whatever may be the rights of an original contractor having constructed two separate buildings under two separate and valid contracts, we think that in the case at bar the only effect of the failure to state how [41]much labor and material was furnished one building, and how much the other, is to postpone the liens of these claimants, and give precedence to the liens of others.
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)