Jewell v. McKay

17 Citing cases

  1. Prince v. Hill

    170 Cal. 192 (Cal. 1915)   Cited 22 times
    In Prince v. Hill, 170 Cal. 192 [ 149 P. 578], where the plaintiff attempted to comply with a predecessor statute of Code of Civil Procedure, section 1193.1, subdivision (j) (4), by giving the name of the contractor, the court said: "This sufficiently shows that the name of the person to whom the materials were furnished and for whom the labor was done was F.T. Whitcomb.

    It has never been so held and the contrary has been decided. (Jewell v. McKay, 82 Cal. 150, [23 P. 139]; Kellogg v. Howes, 81 Cal. 179, [6 L.R.A. 588, 22 P. 509].) In Jewell v. McKay, referring to the provision of section 1183 of the Code of Civil Procedure, that where the original contract is void the labor done and materials furnished upon the building by others than the original contractor "shall be deemed to have been done and furnished at the personal instance of the owner, and they shall have a lien for the value thereof," the court said: "It cannot possibly have been the intention that a contractor, materialman, or laborer, who agrees for a certain sum, can have a lien for a greater sum upon the ground that the value of what he furnished is greater.

  2. Kelley v. Plover

    103 Cal. 35 (Cal. 1894)   Cited 4 times

    The notice of lien substantially complies with the requirements of the statute. (Blackman v. Marsicano , 61 Cal. 638; Hills v. Ohlig , 63 Cal. 104; Jewell v. McKay , 82 Cal. 144.)          JUDGES: Haynes, C. Vanclief, C., and Searls, C., concurred.

  3. Slight v. Patton

    96 Cal. 384 (Cal. 1892)   Cited 1 times

    Section 1187 of the Code of Civil Procedure prescribes what the notice shall state, and does not require that it shall state the date of the completion of the work or structures, nor even that the filing of the notice is within thirty days after the completion of the work. (Harmon v. Ashmead , 68 Cal. 325; Jewell v. McKay , 82 Cal. 146.) No record, evidence, or notice of these facts is necessary to create the lien, although it is necessary that plaintiff allege and prove that the notice of lien was filed within thirty days after the completion of the building.

  4. San Diego Lumber Co. v. Wooldredge

    90 Cal. 574 (Cal. 1891)   Cited 10 times

    The mechanic's lien law is to be liberally construed, especially in regard to the notice of lien. (Malone v. Big Flat G. M. Co ., 76 Cal. 578.) The notice of lien need state only the express terms of the contract. (See Hills v. Ohlig , 63 Cal. 104; Jewell v. McKay , 82 Cal. 144.) The reference in the notice of lien to the contract was a substantial compliance with the law, and a substantial compliance is all that is required.

  5. Carpenters Health Welfare Trust Fund v. Shafer

    146 Cal.App.3d 504 (Cal. Ct. App. 1983)

    ) Furthermore, in construing section 27387, we must keep in mind that although a county recorder may refuse to perform official services until he receives the appropriate statutory fee ( Kientz v. Harris (1953) 117 Cal.App.2d 787, 790-791 [ 257 P.2d 41]), he may not require a claim of lien to state any matter not required by statute. ( Jewell v. McKay (1889) 82 Cal. 144, 151-152 [23 P. 139].) In light of the fact that the Legislature expressed its intent to give limited application to the notice requirement, we hold that the additional fee mandated by section 27387 is payable only when the lien claim is required by law to contain the owner address.

  6. Ingersoll v. Chaplin

    127 Cal.App. 290 (Cal. Ct. App. 1932)   Cited 3 times

    Our own state courts have followed the general rule. ( Tibbetts v. Moore, 23 Cal. 208; Jewell v. McKay, 82 Cal. 144 [ 23 P. 139]; Hazard, Gould Co. v. Rosenberg, 177 Cal. 295 [ 170 P. 612].) "In Osborn v. Logus, supra, the contract for construction was executed by the defendant Logus, owner of certain property, with C.N. Holmes Company.

  7. Johnson v. Smith

    97 Cal.App. 752 (Cal. Ct. App. 1929)   Cited 11 times
    In Johnson v. Smith, 97 Cal.App. 752 [ 276 P. 146], it was held that the fact that hardwood flooring sold by plaintiff to a contractor was torn out by order of the architect employed by the defendant owners because of the defective manner in which the flooring was laid did not defeat plaintiff's right to a mechanic's lien.

    (Citing authorities.) See, also, Jewell v. McKay, 82 Cal. 144, 150 [23 P. 139]; Brennan v. Swasey, 16 Cal. 141 [76 Am. Dec. 507]; Selden v. Meeks, 17 Cal. 131; Heston v. Martin, 11 Cal. 41; Davis v. Livingston, 29 Cal. 283, 287. In the last-cited case it is said: "The second of the three notices is claimed to be defective for four distinct reasons, viz.: that it does not state of what the `materials' named therein consisted; . . .

  8. Hammond Lumber Co. v. Richardson

    94 Cal.App. 119 (Cal. Ct. App. 1928)   Cited 4 times

    Our own state courts have followed the general rule. ( Tibbetts v. Moore, 23 Cal. 208; Jewell v. McKay, 82 Cal. 144 [23 P. 139]; Hazard, Gould Co. v. Rosenberg, 177 Cal. 295 [ 170 P. 612].) In Osborne v. Logus, supra, the contract for construction was executed by the defendant Logus, owner of certain property, with C.N. Holmes Company.

  9. Hardwood Interior Co., Inc. v. Bull

    24 Cal.App. 129 (Cal. Ct. App. 1914)   Cited 9 times

    ( Macomber v. Bigelow, 126 Cal. 9, [ 58 P. 312]; Hines v. Miller, 126 Cal. 683, [ 59 P. 142]; Pacific etc. Co., v. Fisher, 106 Cal. 224, [39 P. 758].) Section 1183 provides that certain designated persons shall have a lien "for the value" of the labor done and materials furnished; and this phrase has been construed to mean, in the absence of fraud, the "agreed value" in cases based upon contract. ( Jewell v. McKay, 82 Cal. 144, 150, [23 P. 139].) It follows that the court should not have disallowed the sum of $18.75 included in the contract price.

  10. Springer Land Association v. Ford

    168 U.S. 513 (1897)   Cited 39 times
    In Springer v. Ford, 169 Ill. 430, 59 N.E. 953, 52 L.R.A. 930, 8 Am. St. Rep. 464, it was ruled that "the law is well settled that persons operating elevators in buildings for the purpose of carrying persons from one story to another are common carriers of passengers."

    Whether the person to whom he furnished the material had authority to bind the owner, and entitle the material-man to a lien, is a matter of pleading and proof at the trial." And in Jewell v. McKay, 82 Cal. 144, it was held that it was not even necessary that the notice of lien should state that the owner of the land had knowledge of the work. By section 1520 of this statute a lien is given for work or labor done at the instance of the owner of the improvement "or his agent;" by section 1529 it is provided that every improvement "constructed upon any lands with the knowledge of the owner or the person having or claiming any interest therein, shall be held to have been constructed at the instance of such owner or person having or claiming any interest therein," unless he shall give notice that he will not be responsible for the same; and by section 1522, the land upon which any improvement is constructed, "together with a convenient space about the same," is also subject to the lien if at the commencement of the work it belonged to the person who caused the improvement to be constructed.