Slayden

—The plaintiff, having furnished certain supplies to a contractor, brought this action to recover on his own and certain similar assigned claims. M. P. O’Dea appeals from that portion of the judgment giving to respondent a lien upon two bonds, Nos. 9 and 10, of improvement district No. 5 of the county of Los Angeles, which bonds are now in the custody of John N. Hunt, treasurer of the county of Los Angeles, and which represent two-tenths of the contract price payable to the contractor for the improvement of certain streets within such districtt (Stats. 1907, p. 806), under a contract of January 18, 1912, between the board of supervisors of the county of Los Angeles and one S. M. Kerns. S. M. Kerns gave a surety bond of the Maryland Casualty Company in an amount equal to fifty per cent of the contract price, for the benefit of laborers and materialmen, as required by law. (Stats.! 1911, p. 1422.) On the following day, with the consent of the surety, Kerns assigned his contract to the defendant Imperial Engineering & Construction Company, of which' company defendant O. 0. Earmer was manager and prin-f cipal stockholder. On the 18th of March, 1912, this com-! pany, for the purpose of…

—I dissent. The main opinion holds that the case is not one in which stop notices can be given under the mechanic’s lien law. Section 1184 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides specifically that upon such notice being given by a workman or materialman “in the ease of property which, for reasons of public policy or otherwise, is not subject to the liens in this chapter provided for, the owner or person who contracted with the contractor, shall withhold from his contractor sufficient money due or that may become due to such contractor to answer such claim.” The essential purpose of this provision is to create, by means of the stop notice, an equitable garnishment in all cases of public work where, if the work were on private property, the workman or materialman would have a lien. This is the established construction of the provision (Bates v. Santa Barbara, 90 Cal. 543 , [ 27 Pac. 438 ]), and one plain on its face. The real question, therefore, is as to whether or not a workman or materialman would have a lien in such a case as the present if the work were done on private property.

This question is not touched on in the main opinion. The main opinion reasons that the words “wagon…