From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Crane Co. v. Maryland Casualty Co.

Court of Appeal of California, First District
Apr 29, 1918
37 Cal.App. 87 (Cal. Ct. App. 1918)

Opinion

Civ. No. 2224.

April 29, 1918.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco. J. M. Seawell, Judge.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

John Ralph Wilson, and Charles B. Morris, for Appellant.

Milton Newmark, for Respondent.

A. A. Moore, Stanley Moore, and L. R. Weinmann, as Amici Curiae.


The defendant, Maryland Casualty Company, appeals from a judgment in favor of plaintiff upon a statutory bond furnished pursuant to section 1183 of the Code of Civil Procedure by the defendant to the owner of the building that was being erected by Siebert Company, as contractors, and for which the plaintiff, Crane Company, furnished materials.

The sole question in the case is whether or not it was a condition precedent to the recovery by the respondents in this action against appellants upon their bond that the respondent file a claim of lien pursuant to the provisions of the mechanic's lien law. The trial court decided this question in the negative, and in accordance with this answer gave judgment for plaintiff, although plaintiff had filed no such claim. The answer given by the trial court to the question was incorrect and the judgment must, therefore, be reversed, and it is so ordered. ( Hubbard v. Jurian, 35 Cal.App. 757, [ 170 P. 1093].)

Lennon, P. J., and Kerrigan, J., concurred.


Summaries of

Crane Co. v. Maryland Casualty Co.

Court of Appeal of California, First District
Apr 29, 1918
37 Cal.App. 87 (Cal. Ct. App. 1918)
Case details for

Crane Co. v. Maryland Casualty Co.

Case Details

Full title:CRANE COMPANY (a Corporation), Respondent, v. MARYLAND CASUALTY COMPANY (a…

Court:Court of Appeal of California, First District

Date published: Apr 29, 1918

Citations

37 Cal.App. 87 (Cal. Ct. App. 1918)
173 P. 494

Citing Cases

General Electric Co. v. American Bonding Co., of Baltimore

Appellant insists that this is strictly a statutory bond, and that no liability arises upon it as a…

Rachow v. Philbrick Nicholson

and because it was stipulated that the state never in any way consented to or recognized the subcontracts.…