Goldschmidt

Bailey Ornamental Iron Co. v. Goldschmidt

Good Law
1917 Cal. App. LEXIS 244·33 Cal. App. 661·166 P. 363·166 P.2d 363
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMay 14, 1917Civ. No. 2238.California877 words

Opinion

lead Opinion

Conrey, J.

Action to enforce a mechanic’s lien claimed by the plaintiff. The plaintiff appeals from the judgment.

In March, 1911, the defendant Emma M. Goldschmidt, being about to cause the erection of a dwelling-house on land owned by her in the city of Los Angeles, entered into an oral contract with the Imperial Iron & Machine Company, under which that company agreed to construct for her a certain iron balcony as a part of the proposed building. The price for the work was to be $268; no time for the payment being named in the agreement. Mrs. Goldschmidt paid an installment of this price on May 18 and the remainder thereof on June 3, 1911, although at those times none of the work had been done. On June 26, 1911, the Imperial Iron & Machine Company entered into an oral contract with the plaintiff for the construction of said balcony. The work was commenced by the plaintiff on the seventh day of July and completed on the sixteenth day of August, 1911. Later the building was completed, and a notice of claim of lien in due form was filed for record by the plaintiff.

At all times prior to June 30, 1911, the law permitted the owner of real property, in causing the construction of any…

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.