Husted

Fresno Loan & Savings Bank v. Husted

Good Law
1897 Cal. LEXIS 994·5 Cal. Unrep. 715·49 P. 195
Supreme Court of CaliforniaJune 17, 1897Sac. No. 257California2,078 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Chipman, J.

Plaintiff, being the owner of certain lots in the city of Fresno, entered into a contract of sale thereof with defendant Mary Husted, on March 6, 1891, for the consideration of $2,000; payments to be $40 upon signing the contracts, and $40 monthly until fully paid. It nowhere appears in the transcript whether these or any payments were made, nor whether said Husted was in default in the payments. She entered into possession under the contract, however, and purchased materials of the admitted value of $277.14, and with them erected a dwelling on these lots, which she occupied. For some reason not explained, defendant Husted, about November, 1894, caused the building to be removed to the lots of defendant Flannagan. The removal took place on Sunday. Within thirty days thereafter plaintiff caused to be filed and recorded a materialman’s lien upon the Flannagan lots, alleging that it furnished lumber and other building material to be used in the construction of the building in question; that the lots sought to be charged with the lien are lots belonging to defendant Flannagan ; that defendant Husted, about November. 1894, entered into a contract with plaintiff, under which said…

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.