Perry

Perry v. Brainard

Good Law
1885 Cal. LEXIS 876·2 Cal. Unrep. 591·8 P. 882
Supreme Court of CaliforniaDecember 19, 1885No. 9724California1,073 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Ross, J.

Defendant Brainard contracted to construct a certain dwelling-house for defendant Beaudry for a certain sum of money, and the plaintiffs contracted with Brainard to furnish certain material for the house. The court below found that the lien which was sought to be enforced by the action was filed prior to the completion of the building, and was therefore prematurely filed. The statute reads: “Every original contractor, within sixty days after the completion of his contract, and every person save the original contractor, claiming the benefit of this chapter, must, within thirty days after the completion of any building, improvement, or structure, or after the completion of the alteration or repair thereof, or the performance of any labor in a mining claim, file for record, ’ ’ etc.: Code Civ. Proc., see. 1187.

*592 It will be seen that the time prescribed by the statute for the filing of the plaintiffs’ claim was “within thirty days after the completion of the building.’’ Under a similar statute the supreme court of Kansas lately held in two cases (Davis v. Bullard, 32 Kan. 234 , 4 Pac. 75 , and Seaton v. Chamberlain, 32 Kan. 239 , 4 Pac. 89 ) that a claim so filed was premature,…

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.