Winship

Winship v. Holden

Good Law
1928 Cal. App. LEXIS 89·90 Cal. App. 71·265 P. 572
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMarch 12, 1928Docket No. 6275.California1,214 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Parker, J.

This is an action for the foreclosure of a materialman’s lien. From a judgment in favor of plaintiffs decreeing that said lien be foreclosed defendants appeal.

There is but one question presented here and that is the claim of lien did not comply with the statute in that it did not describe the kinds of materials furnished. No other point is urged on the sufficiency of the claim of lien, it being conceded that the claim in all other respects conformed to the requirements of the statute. All that appears in the claim of lien relating to the kind of materials furnished is as follows: “Notice is hereby given that J. E. Winship, J. "Vernon Winship and Frank E. Winship, copartners doing business under the firm name and style of J. E. Winship & Sons, dealers in lumber and building materials at all times hereinafter set forth, furnished materials which were actually used in the construction of certain buildings, to wit, two frame dwellings and garage now upon that certain lot of land situate in the city of Riverside, County of Riverside, State of California, and sought to be charged with the lien” (describing property). Further in the claim of lien appears this paragraph: “That J. T.…

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.