Case ID: cal_191/html/0578-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "WILBUR, C. J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

[S. F. No. 10394.
    In Bank.
    
      August 2, 1923.]
    SANTA CRUZ PORTLAND CEMENT COMPANY (a Corporation) , Appellant, Cross-Defendant and Respondent, v. COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA (a Corporation), et al., Defendants; E. B. & A. L. STONE COMPANY (a Corporation), Defendant, Respondent, Cross-Plaintiff and Appellant.
    
       Mechanics’ Liens—Stop Notice—Public Streets—Decision in Slayden v. O’Dea, 182 Cal. 500—Stare Decisis.—The decision in the ease of Slayden v. O’Dea, 182 Cal. 500, to the effect that a Stop notice under section 1184 of the Code of Civil Procedure does not apply to work done in grading a public highway, even if considered to be erroneous, as applied to public streets, must be adhered to upon the principle of stare decisis, where it has been frequently referred to and followed in subsequent decisions, and particularly where all of the work done upon public streets, and all payments and adjustments thereunder have been made upon the faith of that decision.
    APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Santa Clara County. J. R. Welch, Judge. Affirmed.
    The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
    Morrison, Dunne & Brobeck, Louis Oneal, Wm. F. James and J. F. Shuman for Appellants.
    Rea, Cassin & Caldwell and C. C. Coolidge for Respondent.
   WILBUR, C. J.

The appellants in this ease concede that the judgment of the trial court is correct and must be affirmed unless we overrule the decision of Slayden v. O’Dea, 182 Cal. 500 [189 Pac. 1066], to the effect that a stop notice under section 1184 of the Code of Civil Procedure does not apply to work done in grading a public highway. That decision has been frequently referred to and followed in subsequent decisions and has resulted in an amendment to section 1184 of the Code of Civil Procedure. (Stats. 1921, p. 144; Hunt v. Empire Securities Co., 50 Cal. App. 43 [194 Pac. 744] ; Cotton-Macauley Co. v. De Shields, 188 Cal. 102 [204 Pac. 386]; McMorry v. Superior Court, 54 Cal. App. 76 [201 Pac. 797] ; County of Sutter v. Superior Court of Sacramento Co., 188 Cal. 292 [204 Pac. 849].) Under these circumstances, even if we considered that that decision was erroneous, as applied to public streets, we must now adhere to the decision upon the principle of stare decisis, particularly as all of the work done upon public streets, and all payments and adjustments thereunder have been made upon the faith of that decision. This, respondents contend, was done in this case.

Judgment affirmed.

Myers, J., Waste, J., Seawell, J., Kerrigan, J., Richards, J., pro tern., and Lawlor, J., concurred.