Dickenson

Dickenson v. Bolyer

Good Law
55 Cal. 285
Supreme Court of CaliforniaJuly 1, 1880No. 6,589California349 words

Opinion

lead Opinion

Ross, J.

The plaintiffs performed certain work for the defendant Bolyer, upon a dwelling-house situated on a certain mining claim, and also in and upon a tunnel, and other portions of the mining claim. For the amount due for the work so performed, the plaintiffs filed, in due time, their claim of lien, and brought the present action to enforce it. The defendants, Thompson and Kellogg, to whom Bolyer executed a mortgage upon the premises after the filing of the laborers’ claim of lien, appeal from the judgment of the Court below foreclosing the latter, on the ground that inasmuch as the claim of lien filed by the plaintiffs did not designate the amount and value of the work performed upon the dwelling-house, and the amount and value of that performed upon the tunnel, and other portions of the mining claim, the lien of the plaintiffs should have been postponed to the appellants’ mortgage, by virtue of § 1188 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which reads as follows: “ In every case in which one claim is filed against two or more buildings, mining claims, *286 or other improvements owned by the same person, the person filing such claim must at the same time designate the amount due to him on…

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.