Doggett v. Bellows
6 P. 421, 2 Cal. Unrep. 454
Opinion
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
Doggett v. Bellows, 6 P. 421, 2 Cal. Unrep. 454 (Cal. 1885).
6 P. 421 (Doggett v. Bellows) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Whittier v. Hollister
30 P. 846 (California Supreme Court, 1883)