John A. Roebling Sons Co. v. Bear Valley Irrigation Co.

Good Law
1893 Cal. LEXIS 697·99 Cal. 488·34 P. 80
Supreme Court of CaliforniaSeptember 7, 1893No. 19025California378 words

Opinion

lead Opinion

McFarland, J.

This is an appeal by the defendant, the Bear Valley Irrigation Company, from a judgment in favor of the plaintiff in an action to enforce a mechanic’s lien, and from an order denying a motion for a new trial.

It is averred in the complaint that appellant’s grantor employed one Stebbins to construct a certain telephone line, and that respondent sold and delivered to said Stebbins certain materials which were intended to be used in, and were used in, the construction of said line. The court found these averments of the complaint to be true. It is doubtful if the evidence supports the finding that plaintiff sold the materials to Stebbins — the evidence being strongly to the point that they were sold to ■a company called “The Electric Construction Company.” But waiving that point, it is clear that there was no sufficient evidence to support the finding that the materials were sold “ to be used in the construction of said telephone line,” The only evidence upon the subject is to be found in the testimony of the witness Sime, a salesman in the employ of respondent, and who testified: “I can’t tell where the goods were to be used; I don’t know.” He also testified that the goods were of…

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.