Eaton

Bay Lumber Co. v. Eaton

Good Law
119 Cal. App. 362·1931 Cal. App. LEXIS 58·6 P.2d 289
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaDecember 22, 1931Docket No. 4465.California1,919 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Plummer, J.

The plaintiff had judgment in an action to foreclose a mechanic’s lien, from which judgment the above-named defendants appeal.

The record shows that Arthur P. Creel, Tommie Creel, his wife; L. Q. Brenson and Cora Brenson, his wife, entered into an agreement with a contractor by the name of Albert M. Eaton for the construction of a building upon certain real estate belonging to the appellants; that thereafter, Albert M. Baton, as such contractor, purchased of and from the plaintiff, lumber and materials for use in the construction of said building, to the value of $1563.04, upon which there was a credit of $151.12, leaving due the plaintiff the sum of $1411.92. The court found that the lumbei? furnished by the plaintiff was used in the construction of the building belonging to the defendants, and that plaintiff was entitled to a foreclosure of the mechanic’s lien filed by the plaintiff, and directed sale of the lot upon which the building was erected, to satisfy the claim of the plaintiff.

Upon this appeal two grounds only are urged for reversal, to wit: That the testimony does not show that the lumber furnished by the plaintiff was used by the contractor Baton, and entered into…

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.