Wilson

Wilson v. Hind

Good Law
113 Cal. 357·1896 Cal. LEXIS 793·45 P. 695
Supreme Court of CaliforniaJuly 18, 1896S. F. No. 259California400 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Temple, J.

This appeal is from the judgment and was taken within sixty days after its rendition. The action was to foreclose a materialman’s lien. The court held that plaintiffs had no lien on two grounds: 1. Be *359 cause they did not furnish material to the owner or his agent, or to a contractor or subcontractor; 2. Because there was a fatal variance between the contract proven and that stated in the claim of lien.

Henry Behrens was the contractor. He contracted with W. R. Johnston to furnish all the mill work for the house, and to deliver it at the building. Mr. Johnston was called as a witness for plaintiffs, and testified that mill work included certain manufactured material, such as front door frame, door, toplight, recess panels, portico (columns or bracket or cap, balustrade, put together), window frames, sashes, etc. Witness further said: “ I generally bought all my doors, and sash and blinds, and all stock material, you know, from Wilson & Brother.”

“ The Court. Stock material means material that is kept in stock? A. Yes, sir; manufactured. Yes, sir; all stock, doors, sashes, blinds, and transoms, and such like. We did not manufacture these in our mill—nothing only hard…

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.