Pierce

Pierce v. Willis

Good Law
103 Cal. 91·1894 Cal. LEXIS 728·36 P. 1080
Supreme Court of CaliforniaJune 13, 1894No. 15279California656 words

Opinion

lead Opinion

Temple, J.

This is an appeal from an order granting a new trial to plaintiff. Five actions brought to foreclose mechanics’ liens were consolidated and tried under the above title. Upon the trial the truth of all the allegations of the complaint were admitted except as to attorneys’ fees. The contract under which the work was contracted to be done was read in evidence, and from it, and the admissions, the court found in substance: That the contract which is annexed to the findings was duly filed in the recorder’s office of the city and county of San Francisco, but that “no plans, drawings, or specifications were at any time filed with said contract, or at all, nor were any plans, drawings, or specifications ever at any time annexed to said instrument.”

That defendant Willis, who had contracted to construct said building with defendant Birkholm, abandoned the building and contract June 12, 1889, and *92 failed to complete the same, and more than thirty days before the filing of plaintiffs’, claims of lien, or any of them, ceased from labor upon said unfinished and uncompleted contract; nor was labor ever resumed thereon by him or any person representing him; but defendant Birkholm, within…

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.