From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

O'Donnell v. Kramer

Supreme Court of California
Jun 28, 1884
65 Cal. 353 (Cal. 1884)

Opinion

         APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Solano County.

         The defendant Kramer was a contractor, and agreed with the defendant, the Benicia Water Co., to construct a reservoir, but before the completion of the contract abandoned the work. Kramer was indebted to the plaintiffs for work done on the reservoir, and each filed a lien on the property of the defendant.

         The action was brought to enforce the lien.

         COUNSEL:

         L. B. Mizner, and George A. Lamont, for Appellants.

         Joseph McKenna, for Respondents.


         OPINION

         The remaining facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

         THE COURT.

         Action to enforce laborers' liens. The complaint did not aver that any money was due the contractor, but the answer presented that issue, and the court found thereon. We therefore think the case is within section 580 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The court found that the amount due the contractor when he abandoned the contract was one hundred and ninety dollars, but gave judgments for plaintiffs for the full amount due them. This was error; the judgment should have been for the one hundred and ninety dollars. (Latson v. Nelson, 11 P. C.L.J. 589.)

         The cause is remanded, with instructions to modify the judgment by reducing the amount for which a sale should be made to one hundred and ninety dollars, with interest, costs, and attorney's fee, to be properly apportioned among the plaintiffs.


Summaries of

O'Donnell v. Kramer

Supreme Court of California
Jun 28, 1884
65 Cal. 353 (Cal. 1884)
Case details for

O'Donnell v. Kramer

Case Details

Full title:JAMES O'DONNELL ET AL., RESPONDENTS, v. HENRY KRAMER AND THE BENICIA WATER…

Court:Supreme Court of California

Date published: Jun 28, 1884

Citations

65 Cal. 353 (Cal. 1884)
4 P. 204

Citing Cases

Meisner v. McIntosh

The answer having joined issue on this point, the judgment properly followed the measure of damages…

Kimball v. Swenson

The answer having joined issue on this point, the judgment properly followed the measure of damages…