John A. Roebling's Sons Co. v. Humboldt Electric Light & Power Co.

Good Law
112 Cal. 288·1896 Cal. LEXIS 677·44 P. 568
Supreme Court of CaliforniaApril 4, 1896S. F. No. 265California841 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Fleet, J.

The contract between the Pacific Electrical Storage Company and the Humboldt Electric Light and Power Company did not constitute the former corporation an “original contractor” for the construc *290 fcion of the electric light works of the latter company, within the meaning of the provisions of the code relating to liens of mechanics and others.

That contract, in effect, simply provided for the furnishing and setting up, complete and ready for use, by the Pacific Electrical Storage Company, in a building to be provided by the purchaser, of certain specified “electrical apparatus and machinery ” necessary to be used in the construction of such electric light works—this apparatus, consisting of dynamos, converters, switchboard, lamps, etc., with the necessary wiring and connections, constituting in technical parlance an “electrical plant.” The Humboldt Electric Light and Power Company was itself constructing the works, and such machinery or plant was simply purchased by it for use therein. This is expressly contemplated by the contract, which provides by its terms that the last-named ■corporation, which is therein designated the “ purchaser,” shall erect the necessary building to…

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.