Heston v. Martin — 11 Cal. 41

Majority

p. 41

HESTON v. MARTIN.

Headnote

In a mechanic’s lien, it is not necessary to give the items of the work and materials, in the statement of the lien filed, where the contract for the construction of the building is in a sum in gross.

Appeal from the District Court of the Twelfth Judicial District, County of San Francisco.

This was an action to enforce a mechanic’s lien, for the construction of a house and materials furnished.

Plaintiff made a written contract with the defendant for the construction of a house. Defendant was to pay therefor a specified sum in instalments.

The case was tried by the Court, and judgment rendered for the defendants—the Court finding that, under the contract, there was nothing due. By a stipulation entered into, it was agreed to submit

p. 42

to the Court for its decision, the question, whether the amount of 12,080.75—this being the balance due under the contract—was a lien upon the premises. The Court rendered a decision establishing a lien to this amount, from which decision this appeal is taken.

Robert C. & Daniel Rogers for Appellant.

Harmon & Labatt for Respondent.

Field J., conccurring.

This appeal is without merit, and it is apparent that the only point seriously urged by the appellant—to wit: that an account is necessary, giving the items of work and materials in the statement of lien filed— cannot be maintained in case of a contract for a sum in gross.

Judgment affirmed, with ten per cent, damages.