From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Tulloh v. Boyce

Supreme Court of California
Sep 6, 1918
37 Cal.App. 761 (Cal. 1918)

Opinion

         In Bank.

         Appeal from Superior Court, Alameda County; Wm. S. Wells, Judge.

          Frank W. Sawyer, of San Francisco, for appellant.

          W. B. Rinehart, of Oakland, for respondents.


          PER CURIAM.

         In denying a hearing in this court we deem it proper to say that we are in entire accord with the opinion of that court in so far as it holds that filing of a notice of lis pendens is not essential to a continuance of the lien. By reason of the commencement of the action to enforce the lien within the 90 days, the lien continues during the pendency of the action, in view of the provisions of section 1190, Code of Civil Procedure. Further than this it is not essential to go on this appeal.

         The application for a hearing in this court is denied.


Summaries of

Tulloh v. Boyce

Supreme Court of California
Sep 6, 1918
37 Cal.App. 761 (Cal. 1918)
Case details for

Tulloh v. Boyce

Case Details

Full title:TULLOH v. BOYCE et al. (ALSTON et al., Interveners).

Court:Supreme Court of California

Date published: Sep 6, 1918

Citations

37 Cal.App. 761 (Cal. 1918)
177 P. 847