Case Name: UNION LUMBER COMPANY (a Corporation) et al., Respondents, v. JULES A. SIMON et al., Defendants. JULES A. SIMON, Appellant
Court: Supreme Court of California
Jurisdiction: California
Decision Date: 1907-04-02
Citations: 150 Cal. 751
Docket Number: S. F. No. 4126
Parties: UNION LUMBER COMPANY (a Corporation) et al., Respondents, v. JULES A. SIMON et al., Defendants. JULES A. SIMON, Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: California Reports
Volume: 150
Pages: 751–762

Head Matter:
[S. F. No. 4126.
In Bank.
April 2, 1907.]
UNION LUMBER COMPANY (a Corporation) et al., Respondents, v. JULES A. SIMON et al., Defendants. JULES A. SIMON, Appellant.
Mechanics’ Liens—Foreclosure—Statutory Provision for Attorney’s Fees Unconstitutional.—The provision of the statute purporting to authorize the allowance of attorney’s fees for the plaintiff in an action for the foreclosure of mechanics’ liens is unconstitutional and void.
Id.—Sufficiency of Notice of Lien.—A notice of mechanic’s lien, sufficient as to the owner, cannot be void as to third persons without knowledge of the extrinsic facts.
Id.—Description of Land to be Charged with Lien—Evidence of Identity.—In a notice of a claim for a mechanic’s lien, the description of the property to be charged with the lien need only be such as will be “sufficient for identification,’’ and in an action to enforce the lien evidence may be received for the purpose of determining its sufficiency, and to identify the land sought to be charged with the land described in the notice.
Id.—Imperfect Description by Metes and Bounds—General Description.—In a notice of a claim for a mechanic’s lien, an imperfect attempt to describe the land sought to be charged by metes and bounds may be aided and rendered sufficient by a further statement in the notice that a particular person is the owner of the land, and the building erected thereon, and that the lien is claimed for materials furnished a specified contractor while such contractor was engaged in constructing the building for such owner; and in an action to enforce the lien, evidence is admissible to identify the land described in the complaint with the land so described in the notice.
Id.—Binding—Land Necessary for Convenient Use of Building.—• In such an action, a finding that the building covered a large portion of the land, and that all of the land, which had a frontage of one hundred and six feet and eight inches, and a depth of one hundred and sixty-four feet and one inch, was necessary for its convenient' use and occupation, is sustained by evidence showing that the building was constructed for a hospital, having a dimension of sixty-eight feet in width and one hundred and eight feet in depth, containing "40 bedrooms for patients, and also operating-rooms, sterilizing-room, washrooms, bathrooms, nurses’ dormitories, dining-rooms, and nurses’ classrooms,” although there was no evidence showing the particular portion of the lot upon which the building stood. Brom such evidence the court could determine, as a matter of general knowledge, that the entire lot was necessary for the use of the hospital.
Id.—Consolidation of Actions—Issue Tendered by One Plaintiff— Binding.—Upon the consolidation of several actions to foreclose mechanics’ liens, there is only a single action by the respective plaintiffs against the defendants, and the decision thereon is to be made as if the cause of action had been presented in a single complaint, and is to be embodied in a single set of findings, in which all facts in issue in the consolidated action are to be incorporated; and an issue as to the amount of the land necessary for the convenient use and occupation of the building, tendered in any of the original complaints, and the findings and judgment thereon, operate in favor of all of the plaintiffs in the same manner as if they had originally joined as plaintiffs in bringing the action and raising such issue.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco and from an order refusing a new trial. J. C. B. Hebbard, Judge.
The facts are stated in the opinion rendered in the district court of appeal.
Roger Johnson, for Appellant.
Pillsbury, Madison & Sutro, Barna McKinne, and J. S. Reid, for Respondent.

Opinion:
THE COURT.
This ease was decided in the district court of appeal for the first district, within the sixty days next preceding April 18, 1906, and found its way to this court by reason of the general order made April 23, 1906, transferring all causes in which applications for rehearing were then pending. Since the decision by the court of appeal, this court has decided, in Builders' Supply Depot v. O'Connor, ante, p. 265, [88 Pac. 982], that our statutory provision as to the allowance of attorney's fees in this class of actions is unconstitutional and void. It follows that, in so far as the judgment allows attorney's fees, it is erroneous. We do not agree to that part of the opinion of Justice Harrison intimating that a notice of lien sufficient as to the owner may be void as to third persons without knowledge of the extrinsic facts. In our opinion the notice of lien, as a whole, contains sufficient matter of description to make it good in that respect as to all persons. In all other respects we find that the opinion of the district court of appeal is a correct exposition of the law applicable, and to that extent the same is adopted as the opinion of this court.
The judgment is modified by striking therefrom all allowances for attorney's fees, and, as so modified, is affirmed.