Linck

Linck v. Meikeljohn

Good Law
1905 Cal. App. LEXIS 221·2 Cal. App. 506·84 P. 309
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaDecember 20, 1905Civ. No. 121.California719 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Allen, J.

This action was brought by plaintiff to enforce a lien of materialmen who furnished the materials used in the construction of a house erected by a contractor, who constructed the same under a contract with one, not the owner, but who falsely represented himself as such. The trial court by its decreé rendered judgment against the contractor and directed a sale of the building. From this decree and judgment, and an order denying a new trial, the owners of the real property appeal.

It is insisted by appellants upon this appeal that no lien can attach to a building permanently resting upon land, unless some interest in the real property is vested in the person who caused the superstructure to be erected; and that a decree directing the sale of the building in proceeding to foreclose a mechanic’s lien is unauthorized. Section 15, article 20 of our state constitution provides: “Mechanics, materialmen . . . shall have a lien upon the property upon which they have bestowed labor or furnished material for the value,” etc. Title IV of the Code of Civil Procedure, which comprises the necessary legislation to carry into effect this constitutional right, provides that the lien shall be upon…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.