Ingersoll

Ingersoll v. Chaplin

Good Law
127 Cal. App. 290·1932 Cal. App. LEXIS 405·15 P.2d 790
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaNovember 1, 1932Docket No. 424.California798 words

Opinion

lead Opinion

Marks, J.

This is an action to foreclose separate mechanics’ liens upon property situated in the town of Encinitas in San Diego County. Judgment was rendered in favor of the plaintiffs, and the defendants, Sidney Chaplin, Minnie Chaplin and Lallie de Loriere are here on appeal.

The liens state that Sidney Chaplin was the owner and reputed owner of the premises upon which ‘ the liens were claimed. The complaint alleges, and the court found, that Sidney Chaplin and Minnie Chaplin, as husband and wife, were the owners of the property. This creates no sufficient variance affecting the validity of the judgment. (17 Cal. Jur. 132, sec. 86, and cases cited.) In Ah Louis v. Harwood, 140 Cal. 500 [ 74 Pac. 41, 43 ], it was said: “If in good faith the claimant states the name of a reputed owner, ‘he shall not lose his lien if he shall afterward ascertain that some other person was the owner. ’ (Corbett v. Chambers, 109 Cal. 178 [ 41 Pac. 873 ].) It was also there said: ‘The object of this statement in his claim is, as we have seen, to designate the person against whom he seeks to establish the lien, as well as to protect others in their dealing with the property. The purpose of this designation is…

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.