Lewis

In a complaint to foreclose a mechanic’s lien against respondents, plaintiff-appellant, a licensed general contractor, doing business as Curley’s Dry wall Construction Co., sued to enforce payment of a balance of $43,834.78 due on a written contract entered into specifically with Mayfair Development Company, one of respondent co-venturers. The contract required appellant to furnish materials and necessary labor for the installation of drywall in houses to be constructed upon land owned by American Hawaiian Land Company, another of respondents, for the agreed price of $223,661.29.

Appellant alleges in paragraph 7 of his complaint that between June 21, *814 1966 and May 21, 1967, he furnished labor and material used in said houses as required by the contract and in paragraph 8 he alleges that a balance of $43,834.78 is unpaid and owing.

Respondents, insofar as pertinent here, in paragraph VI of their answer referring to paragraph 7 of the complaint admit “. . . that at the special instance and request of [respondents], plaintiff did furnish and deliver drywall materials and labor for installation in the construction of said improvements . . . and that [respondents]…

I dissent. Misapplying the controlling statutory and decisional law, the majority opinion reverses a judgment which faithfully applies the plain provisions of section 7031 of the Business and Professions Code to a case in which there is no dispute whatever as to any material fact. The record, including the affidavits supporting and opposing the motion for summary judgment, demonstrates the complete absence of any triable issue of fact.

The law as stated and applied in the majority opinion is in conflict with *819 the law as it has been enunciated in every previous California decision dealing with the doctrine of substantial compliance in the application of section 7031, including Latipac, Inc. v. Superior Court, 64 Cal.2d 278 [ 49 Cal.Rptr. 676 , 411 P.2d 564 ], upon which it places its complete but mistaken reliance. Among other decisions in conflict with the instant decision are Famous Builders, Inc. v. Bolin, 264 Cal.App.2d 37 [ 70 Cal.Rptr. 17 ]; Brunzell Constr. Co. v. Barton Dev. Co., 240 Cal.App.2d 442 [ 49 Cal.Rptr. 667 ]; Bierman v. Hagstrom Construction Co., 176 Cal.App.2d 771 [ 1 Cal.Rptr. 826 ]; and Harrison v. Butte Steel Buildings, Inc., 150 Cal.App.2d 296 [ 310…

In a complaint to foreclose a mechanic's lien against respondents, plaintiff-appellant, a licensed general contractor, doing business as Curley's Drywall Construction Co., sued to enforce payment of a balance of $43,834.78 due on a written contract entered into specifically with May-fair Development Company, one of respondent co-venturers. The contract required appellant to furnish materials and necessary labor for the installation of drywall in houses to be constructed upon land owned by American Hawaiian Land Company, another of respondents, for the agreed price of $223,661.29.

Appellant alleges in paragraph 7 of his complaint that between June 21, 1966 and May 21, 1967, he furnished labor and material used in said houses as required by the contract and in paragraph 8 he alleges that a balance of $43,834.78 is unpaid and owing.

Respondents, insofar as pertinent here, in paragraph VI of their answer referring to paragraph 7 of the complaint admit "... that at the special instance and request of [respondents], plaintiff did furnish and deliver drywall materials and labor for installation in the construction of said improvements ... and that [respondents]…