Doggett v. Bellows

California Supreme Court

Doggett v. Bellows

6 P. 421, 2 Cal. Unrep. 454

CourtCalifornia Supreme Court

DecidedMarch 24, 1885

DocketNo. 8714

StatusPublished

This text of 6 P. 421 (Doggett v. Bellows) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Doggett v. Bellows, 6 P. 421, 2 Cal. Unrep. 454 (Cal. 1885).

Pincite

Opinion

By the COURT.

Action to foreclose a mechanic’s lien. There is no averment in the complaint that any sum was due from the Mendocino Flume & Mining Company, the owner, to Bellows the contractor; therefore the demurrer of the company to the complaint should have been sustained: Latson v. Nelson, 11 Pac. C. L. J. 589; Whittier v. Hollister, 64 Cal. 283, 30 Pac. 846.

The judgment, so far as it concerns the Mendocino Flume & Mining Company, is reversed, and the cause is remanded with directions to sustain the demurrer above referred to.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

By the COURT.

Action to foreclose a mechanic’s lien. There is no averment in the complaint that any sum was due from the Mendocino Flume & Mining Company, the owner, to Bellows the contractor; therefore the demurrer of the company to the complaint should have been sustained: Latson v. Nelson, 11 Pac. C. L. J. 589; Whittier v. Hollister, 64 Cal. 283, 30 Pac. 846.

The judgment, so far as it concerns the Mendocino Flume & Mining Company, is reversed, and the cause is remanded with directions to sustain the demurrer above referred to.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

6 P. 421, 2 Cal. Unrep. 454, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/doggett-v-bellows-cal-1885.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack