Case ID: cal_64/html/0283-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Per Curiam.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

[Department Two
    November 3, 1883.]
    W. F. WHITTIER et al., Respondents, v. H. F. HOLLISTER, Appellant.
    Mechanic’s’ Leen—Contractor—Lien of Material Man.—Where a building is constructed under a contract, no lien exists in favor of one who furnishes materials to a sub-contractor, beyond the amount due from the owner to the original contractor,
    Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of the county of Alameda, and from an order refusing a new trial.
    The facts appear in the opinion of the court.
    
      Charles J. Swift, for Appellant.
    
      H. A. Leake., for Respondent.
   Per Curiam.

This is an action to enforce a lien for materials furnished to a sub-contractor, which were used in the construction of a building on the premises of the defendant Hollister. The building was erected in pursuance of a contract. There is no allegation in the complaint that any money was due or to become due from the owner to the contractor. The defendant Hollister demurred to the complaint.

The question involved in this appeal was disposed of in Latson v. Nelson, 11 Pac. C. L. J. 589.

The judgment, so far as it relates to the defendant Hollister, and so far as it concerns the real estate mentioned therein, and directs a sale thereof, and the order denying her motion for a new trial, are reversed, and the cause is remanded with instruction to sustain the demurrer of the defendant Hollister. (Renton v. Conley, 49 Cal. 185; Wells v. Cohn, 51 Cal. 423.)