Doggett v. Bellows

6 P. 421, 2 Cal. Unrep. 454
California Supreme Court·Decided March 24, 1885·No. No. 8714·Published

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

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)