TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Hills v. Ohlig

SANFORD M. HILLS v. AUGUSTUS OHLIG, PATRICK HOLLINAN

Hills v. Ohlig, 63 Cal. 104 (1883)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
California Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
January 26, 1883
Judges
Pee
Citations
63 Cal. 1041883 Cal. LEXIS 369
Headnotes
Mechanic's Lien—Sufficiency of Gmm__The action was brought to enforce a mechanic’s lein. The claim filed was objected to on the ground that it did not state the time given as required by the statute. It purported, however, to state the terms and conditions of the contract, and it did not appear that there was any express agreement as to time. Held', that the objection could not be sustained.
Summary
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of the city and county of San Francisco. The facts are sufficiently stated in the opinion of the court.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Pee

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Pee Curiam.

Action to foreclose a mechanic’s lien.

The only point presented for decision relates to the claim of lien filed in the recorder’s office. The claim as filed states that the plaintiff was by the contract to perform the work and labor and furnish materials for the alteration, construction, and repairing of a certain building, that he did perform the work and labor and furnished materials for the purpose indicated, that it was agreed he was to be paid for the same what they should be reasonably worth, and that they were reasonably worth $601.80.

The law requires that the claim filed shall contain inter alla a • statement of the terms, time given, and conditions of the contract (Code Civ. Proc., § 1187), and it is urged that the time given was not stated in the claim. So far as we can see, all the terms and conditions are stated. We cannot judicially say that they are not stated as agreed on by the parties and expressed in the contract. The words of the statute, “time given,” in our judgment mean the time of payment for the work and labor performed and materials furnished, as agreed on and expressed in the contract. As said above, we cannot say that the contract is not accurately stated ; that is, stated as made and agreed on. If this is so, no distinct time was agreed on, but the time of payment was left to the rule fixed by the law on such a state of facts. When this is *105 the case, no time is given in comtemplation of law, and the requirement that the “time given” must be stated does not apply. If the words “time given” refer to the time agreed on for the completion of the contract, and no period of time for such completion is fixed by the contract, but such time is allowed as the law gives, the same rule applies, and no time need be stated in the claim. "

We are of opinion that the claim, as filed, complied with the statute, and is sufficient.

Judgment affirmed.

Hearing in Bank denied.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1887: 11889: 21890: 11891: 11894: 11895: 11900: 118872026peak 1889 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. McClain v. Hutton61 P. 273 (Cal. 1900)
  2. United States Blowpipe Co. v. Spencer21 S.E. 769 (W. Va. 1895)
  3. Tredinnick v. Red Cloud Consolidated Mining Co.13 P. 152 (Cal. 1887)
  4. Jewell v. McKay23 P. 139 (Cal. 1889)
  5. Albrecht v. C. C. Foster Lumber Co.26 N.E. 157 (Ind. 1890)
  6. Russ Lumber & Mill Co. v. Garrettson25 P. 747 (Cal. 1891)

Most recent

  1. McClain v. Hutton61 P. 273 (Cal. 1900)
  2. United States Blowpipe Co. v. Spencer21 S.E. 769 (W. Va. 1895)
  3. Kelley v. Plover36 P. 1020 (Cal. 1894)
  4. Russ Lumber & Mill Co. v. Garrettson25 P. 747 (Cal. 1891)
  5. Albrecht v. C. C. Foster Lumber Co.26 N.E. 157 (Ind. 1890)
  6. Jewell v. McKay23 P. 139 (Cal. 1889)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list