Harmon v. San Francisco & San Rafael Railroad

Searls, C. This is an action to foreclose a mechanic’s lien upon the San Francisco and San Rafael Railroad, extending from Point Tiburón to San Rafael in the county of Marin, taken to secure the sum of thirty-nine thousand seven hundred and seventy dollars and eighty-three cents, less about seven thousand dollars paid on account thereof, claimed to be due the plaintiff for lumber, timber, etc., furnished by him as a subcontractor to one M. MacDonald, an original contractor, and used in the construction of said railroad.

There was another action brought by the Gordon Hardware Company (a corporation), to foreclose a lien upon the same property.

The two actions were consolidated, tried together, and judgment entered by the court in favor of the defendants, from which judgment and from an order denying his motion for a new trial S. H. Harmon, plaintiff in the first-mentioned cause, appeals.

The case involves but two questions of importance. The first relates to the time within which the lien was filed after the work was completed. „

The complaint avers the completion of the work on the eighth day of June, 1884, and the filing by plaintiff oí his notice of lien as a subcontractor on the eighteenth day of June, 1884.

The answer of the defendant railroad company negatives the allegations of the complaint in this behalf, avers the work to have been completed on or about May 5, 1884, “ and that the plaintiff did not, within thirty days after the completion of said railroad and the work mentioned in said contract, file for record,” etc., his claim, etc.

The court found that the contract under which plaintiff furnished supplies was completed May 8,1884, “and that the plaintiff, Harmon, did not, within thirty days [186]after the completion of said railroad and the work mentioned in said contract, file for record with the county recorder of Marin county any claim containing a statement of his demands,” etc., and then proceeds to find that plaintiff’s claim was filed June 18, 1884, long after the expiration of the thirty days after the completion of said railroad and of all work done or required to be done under said contract, etc.

These findings are challenged by appellant, upon the ground that they are not supported by evidence, etc.