Sidlinger

Sidlinger v. Kerkow

Good Law
1889 Cal. LEXIS 799·82 Cal. 42·22 P. 932
Supreme Court of CaliforniaDecember 13, 1889No. 13146California1,182 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Paterson, J.

This is an action to recover the sum. of $519 for work and labor upon a certain building owned by the defendant Amestoy in the city of Los Angeles. The amount claimed includes the sum of $300 as a balance under an express contract to perform certain work, the contract price being $600, and the sum of $219 for extra work, alleged to have been performed at the special instance ■ and request of the defendants Iverkow & Shurtz. The action is also to foreclose a mechanic’s lien for the sums mentioned. Plaintiff had judgment in the court below, and defendant has appealed therefrom on the judgment roll alone. The first point made by appellants is, that the contract between the plaintiff and defendants was void because it did net provide that twenty-five per cent of the contract price should be payable thirty-five days after the completion of the contract. Section 1183 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides: “All such contracts shall be in writing when the amount agreed to be paid thereunder exceeds one thousand dollars, and shall be subscribed by the parties thereto, and the said contract, or a memorandum thereof, setting forth the names of all the parties to the contract, a description…

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.