Mallard

La Grill v. Mallard

Good Law
1891 Cal. LEXIS 942·90 Cal. 373·27 P. 294
Supreme Court of CaliforniaJuly 26, 1891No. 14189California791 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Garoutte, J.

This is an action to foreclose a mechanic’s lien, in which plaintiffs obtained a decree, the defendant having filed an answer and then failed to appear at the trial. He now appeals from the judgment, and insists that the complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. The notice of lien was filed thirty-four days after the completion of the work. If the plaintiffs were not original contractors, the complaint is fatally defective, and will not support the judgment, for the notice of lien was not filed within thirty days. The evidence not being before us, this question must be weighed and determined by the allegation of the pleading.

The plaintiffs allege “ that on or about the tenth day of June, 1886, plaintiffs made and entered into a contract, as original contractors, with the defendant herein, whereby the plaintiffs were to paper and decorate, with paper decorations, the walls and ceiling of four rooms and the hall in the building, the same being a dwelling-house of the defendant; and afterwards, about the tenth day of July, 1888, by the direction and request of ,tlie defendant, plaintiffs papered with plain paper the walls and *375 ceiling of one…

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.