Pierce v. Willis

California Supreme Court Jun 13, 1894 No. No. 15279Published

Before: Temple

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that an order granting a new trial based solely on the argument that the trial court's conclusions of law were inconsistent with its findings of fact must be reversed, as such an error is not a proper ground for a new trial.

Issues

Whether a new trial may be granted on the ground that the court's conclusions of law are not supported by the findings of fact.

Disposition. reversed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Appellant contends that the order granting a new trial should be reversed, because the court was not authorized to grant a new trial upon the ground that the conclusions, from the facts found, are against law.”

“The order must be reversed.”

Synopsis

New Trial—Decision Against Law—Conclusions of Law From Facts Found—Reversal of Order.—The trial court is not authorized to grant a new trial upon the ground that the conclusions, from the facts found, are a decision against law, and an order granting a new trial upon that ground will be reversed upon appeal.

Mechanics’ Liens—Claims Not Filed in Time—Finding—Conclusion of Law.—A statement among the conclusions of law that as a conclusion from the preceding findings of fact “the liens of the plaintiffs and each of them were not filed within the time required by law” is a conclusion of law, and not a finding of fact.

Temple, C. This is an appeal from an order granting a new trial to plaintiff. Five actions brought to foreclose mechanics’ liens were consolidated and tried under the above title. Upon the trial the truth of all the allegations of the complaint were admitted except as to attorneys’ fees. The contract under which the work was contracted to be done was read in evidence, and from it, and the admissions, the court found in substance: That the contract which is annexed to the findings was duly filed in the recorder’s office of the city and county of San Francisco, but that “no plans, drawings, or specifications were at any time filed with said contract, or at all, nor were any plans, drawings, or specifications ever at any time annexed to said instrument.”

That defendant Willis, who had contracted to construct said building with defendant Birkholm, abandoned the building and contract June 12, 1889, and [92]failed to complete the same, and more than thirty days before the filing of plaintiffs’, claims of lien, or any of them, ceased from labor upon said unfinished and uncompleted contract; nor was labor ever resumed thereon by him or any person representing him; but defendant Birkholm, within thirty days after Willis had abandoned the contract, commenced work upon the building, and completed the same on the twentieth day of August, 1889.

As conclusion of law the court found that the liens were not filed in time, and that plaintiffs take nothing by their action, and defendant Birkholm recover his costs.

Among the allegations of the complaint is one that the building was fully completed on the twentieth day of August, 1889, and another that the notice of lien was filed September 18, 1889. Plaintiff moved for a new trial, stating in his notice of intention all the statutory ■grounds.

The statement contains the contract and the admissions. The only specifications of error are as follows:

“Plaintiffs specify the following particulars in which the decision of the court in this cause was against law:

“ The findings show that the contract entered into between defendant Birkholm and defendant Willis provided for the construction of a structure of which the only description is as follows: A ‘ two-story dwelling-house and shed,’ and said structure was to be built ‘in conformity with the plans, drawings, and specifications for the same made by Chas. S. Shaner, the authorized architect employed by the owner, and 'which are signed by the parties hereto,’ .... and that ‘the specifications and drawings are intended to co-operate so that any work exhibited in the drawings and not mentioned in the specifications, or vice versa, are to be executed the same as if both mentioned in the specifications and set forth in the drawings, to the true intent and meaning of the said drawings and specifications when taken together,’ and said findings furthermore show that the

Pierce v. Willis

AI Brief

Synopsis

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief