Case Name: FORDERER CORNICE WORKS (a Corporation), Respondent, v. WILLIAM CHATHAM et al., Appellants
Court: District Court of Appeal of the State of California
Jurisdiction: California
Decision Date: 1921-10-14
Citations: 54 Cal. App. 796
Docket Number: Civ. No. 3958
Parties: FORDERER CORNICE WORKS (a Corporation), Respondent, v. WILLIAM CHATHAM et al., Appellants.
Judges: 
Reporter: California Appellate Reports
Volume: 54
Pages: 796–797

Head Matter:
[Civ. No. 3958.
First Appellate District, Division Two.
October 14, 1921.]
FORDERER CORNICE WORKS (a Corporation), Respondent, v. WILLIAM CHATHAM et al., Appellants.
Mechanics’ Liens — Filing op Claim — ¡Recovery on Bond.—Judgment affirmed on authority of W. P. Puller # Co. v. Chatham et al., 53 Cal. App. 800- [200 Pae. 293],
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco. George E. Crothers, Judge.
Affirmed.
The facts are the same as- in W. P. Fuller & Co. v. Chatham et al., 53 Cal. App. 800 [200 Pac. 293].
A. A. Moore, Stanley Moore and L. E. Weinmann for Appellants.
Hartley F. Peart and Olin L. Berry for Respondent.

Opinion:
STURTEVANT, J.
This is an appeal by the sureties on a contractor's bond from a judgment in favor of a material-man. The ease is parallel in all of its' facts with the case entitled W. P. Fuller & Co. v. Chatham et al., 53 Cal. App. 800 [200 Pac. 293]. A petition to have that case heard and determined by the supreme court was by that court denied September 15, 1921.
Since this case was filed, the Puller ease was heard and determined on appeal. Counsel for appellants have courteously called to our attention the above facts.'
On the authority of the Puller case the judgment is affirmed.
Nourse, J., and Langdon, P. J., concurred.