Yancy

Yancy v. Morton

Good Law
1892 Cal. LEXIS 726·94 Cal. 558·29 P. 1111
Supreme Court of CaliforniaMay 24, 1892No. 14604California957 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Garoutte, J.

Action by material-men to foreclose a lien for material furnished in the erection of a building. This appeal is by defendant from the judgment and order denying his motion for a new trial. Poore and Anton, as original contractors, agreed to erect a building for defendant for the sum of twenty-seven hundred dollars. Prior to the completion of the contract, they abandoned the work, and plaintiff now brings this action against the owner of the building for the value of *560 the material furnished, claiming that the contract was absolutely void, because, — 1. Twenty-five per cent of the contract price was not to be retained thirty-five days after the completion of the building; 2. Because the contract contained no description of the property; 3. Because the drawings were made a part of the contract, and were not attached to and filed with it in the recorder’s office.

Appellant also complains that the contractors were not joined as co-defendants. While they were proper parties to the action, it does not appear that they were necessary parties, and if the defendant desired to have them joined as co-defendants, he should have made application to the court for such an order. In Russ…

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.