Fresno Loan & Savings Bank v. Husted

CHIPMAN, C. Plaintiff, being the owner of certain lots in the city of Fresno, entered into a contract of sale thereof with defendant Mary Husted, on March 6, 1891, for the consideration of $2,000; payments to be $40 upon signing the contracts, and $40 monthly until fully paid. It nowhere appears in the transcript whether these or any payments were made, nor whether said Husted was in default in the payments. She entered into possession under the contract, however, and purchased materials of the admitted value of $277.14, and with them erected a dwelling on these lots, which she occupied. For some reason not explained, defendant Husted, about November, 1894, caused the building to be removed to the lots of defendant Flannagan. The removal took place on Sunday. Within thirty days thereafter plaintiff caused to be filed and recorded a materialman’s lien upon the Flannagan lots, alleging that it furnished lumber and other building material to be used in the construction of the building in question; that the lots sought to be charged with the lien are lots belonging to defendant Flannagan ; that defendant Husted, about November. 1894, entered into a contract with plaintiff, under which said materials were furnished; that she agreed to pay therefor their reasonable market value; that said materials were used in constructing said building upon the lots of said Flannagan with his knowledge and consent; that said contract has been fully performed, and said building or structure finished, etc. This action was brought to enforce the lien upon defendant Flan[717]nagan’s lots. Defendants answered, denying the allegations of the complaint. The cause was tried by the court, without a jury, and judgment given for defendants. The appeal is from the judgment and from the order denying a new trial.

The court found against all the allegations of plaintiff’s complaint except it found that defendant Flannagan owned the lots to which the building was removed, but it found also that “it was not built or located thereon permanently, but was merely, by an arrangement between the defendants Flannagan and Husted, temporarily placed and allowed temporarily to remain upon the said lots, with the understanding that it might be removed at any time by the defendant Mary Husted.” This finding as to the understanding between the defendants is warranted by the evidence. The court finds, as alleged in the lien and complaint, that the building was placed on the Flannagan lots about November 25, 1894, and that plaintiff filed its claim of lien in due form within thirty days thereafter; but the court finds “that the statements and affirmations of said lien were false in fact; that the plaintiff then had no claim or demand justly due or enforceable -against said defendants, or either of them, with or without offsets, and the said materials were not furnished by the persons stated in said claim of lien or at all.” The evidence sustains this finding. It seems to me the case lies in a nutshell, and that there is no demand upon us to follow plaintiff’s counsel in his excursion through the reported cases of this character, and into the wide domain of general law to which his learned brief invites us.