Frowenfeld

Frowenfeld v. Hastings

Good Law
134 Cal. 128·1901 Cal. LEXIS 729·66 P. 178
Supreme Court of CaliforniaSeptember 10, 1901Sac. No. 671.California1,852 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

McFARLAND, J.

This is an appeal by defendant from a judgment in favor of plaintiff. The action is to enforce an asserted lien upon the defendant’s undivided interest in certain mining property, for advances of money alleged to have been made by plaintiff’s testator, Goldstein, who was the owner of an undivided interest in said property. The action is based on a certain written contract made by Goldstein, the party of the first part, and the defendant herein and Mary Martha Hickey (now Mrs. Posey), also an owner in the property, parties of the second part. A similar independent action was also brought by appellant against Mrs. Posey, and an appeal by her from a judgment against.her (Sac. No. 762) was submitted with the case at bar. A decision in one of the cases determines the other. The judgment in both cases enforces the alleged lien, by decreeing the sale of the defendant’s interest in the property to satisfy certain amounts of money found to have been advanced as alleged. A demurrer to the complaint was filed on the general ground that it does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, and also on several special grounds.

The contract in question, which is set forth in full…

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.