Willis
Hammond Lumber Co. v. Willis
Opinion
Lead Opinion
Shaw, J.
This case presents cross-appeals, one by the plaintiffs, the other by the defendant Maryland Casualty Company. The case is a companion case to that of Roystone Company v. Darling, L. A. No. 4072, decided on December 15, 1915, ante, p. 526, [ 154 Pac. 15 ]. The respective appeals are from different parts of the judgment.
The plaintiffs began actions to foreclose mechanics’ liens asserted by them, respectively, against the property of the defendant Mertz, for labor and materials furnished by them to the defendant Willis, the contractor, which were used in the erection of buildings on the premises of Mertz in San Bernardino County. One building, a dwelling, was erected under a contract between Mertz and Willis dated October 10, 1911, which was accompanied by a bond executed by Willis and the Maryland Casualty Company to Mertz in the penal sum of $1,975, being one-half the contract price, conditioned substantially as required by section 1183 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as amended in 1911. Neither the contract nor the bond were ever filed in the office of the county recorder of the county. The other building was á garage erected on the same lot. No written contract was made…
Concurring Opinion
Henshaw, J.
I concur for the reasons given in the concurring opinion in Roystone Company v. Darling, L. A. No. 4072, decided December 15, 1915, ante, p. 526, [ 154 Pac. 15 ].
Melvin, J., concurred.
Rehearing denied.