Joost

Joost v. Sullivan

Good Law
111 Cal. 286·1896 Cal. LEXIS 577·43 P. 896
Supreme Court of CaliforniaFebruary 20, 1896No. 10035California2,898 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Haynes, J.

Action to foreclose subcontractors’ liens. Pending the litigation the claim of Joost Brothers was *289 paid, and the only defendants served were Eugene and Kate Sullivan. The claims of Byron and Bayreutlier were sustained by the court, and from the judgment, enforcing their liens and from an order denying a new trial this appeal is prosecuted.

Eugene Sullivan was the owner, and his wife, Kate Sullivan, was made a party, the complaint alleging that she claimed some interest in the property. Eugene Sullivan died before the trial, and Kate Sullivan, having been duly appointed administratrix of his estate, was substituted, as such administratrix, in his stead; and as such, and as an individual, has taken this appeal.

A contract was made by Eugene Sullivan with one Westcott to raise, make alterations, additions, and repairs to a two-story frame building upon a lot situate at No. 625 Natoma street, city of San Francisco. Plaintiffs alleged that neither said contract nor any memorandum thereof was ever filed in the recorder’s office; “that said building was completed on or about the fourteenth day of October, 1891, and further alleged the filing of their respective liens before the…

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.