Donnelly

Donnelly v. Adams

Good Law
115 Cal. 129·1896 Cal. LEXIS 982·46 P. 916
Supreme Court of CaliforniaNovember 30, 1896S. F. No. 182California847 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Henshaw, J.

These are cross-appeals by plaintiff and defendant. The action was by the assignor of an original contractor to foreclose a lien under a building contract. The court adjudged plaintiff to have a lien, and decreed foreclosure thereof.

Defendants’ claim that the contract between the parties is void first invites attention. The contract provided that the contractor should furnish the necessary labor and materials to erect a certain building “and other works shown and described in and by and in conformity with the plans, drawings, and specifications for the same, made by B. B. Henriksen, the authorized architect employed by the owner, and whiph are signed by the parties hereto, and are to be kept and remain in the office of said architect, subject to the inspection of the parties hereto and others concerned in said erection.”

What purported to be the plans and specifications were admitted in evidence over the objection of defendants. They were not signed by the parties to the contract.

In Worden v. Hammond, 37 Cal. 64 , the contract was to build a barn “agreeable to the draft, plan, and explanation hereto annexed, marked A.” No plan or specifications were attached, but an unsigned…

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.