Emigh-Winchell Hardware Co. v. Pylman

California Court of Appeal

Emigh-Winchell Hardware Co. v. Pylman

31 Cal. App. 46, 1916 Cal. App. LEXIS 458

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal

DecidedJuly 6, 1916

DocketCiv. No. 1582

StatusPublished

This text of 31 Cal. App. 46 (Emigh-Winchell Hardware Co. v. Pylman) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Court of Appeal primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Emigh-Winchell Hardware Co. v. Pylman, 31 Cal. App. 46, 1916 Cal. App. LEXIS 458 (Cal. Ct. App. 1916).

Pincite

Opinion

THE COURT.

This is an action to foreclose a mechanic’s lien and to bring about a sale of the premises should it be. necessary to enforce the payment as claimed.

It was said in Weldon v. Superior Court, 138 Cal. 427, [71 Pac. 502]: “The action, so far as it sought to foreclose the lien against the premises, was unquestionably an equitable suit.” In Goldtree v. City of San Diego, 8 Cal. App. 505, [97 Pac. 216], citing that case, it was said: “The contention that the lien is not of equitable cognizance because created by law cannot be considered. Such a distinction would destroy all equitable jurisdiction to carry out the provisions of the code. The remedy for the enforcement of the lien is clearly an equitable one. ’ ’

The jurisdiction is in the supreme court (Const., sec. 4, art. VI), and the case is therefore transferred to that court.

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

THE COURT.

This is an action to foreclose a mechanic’s lien and to bring about a sale of the premises should it be. necessary to enforce the payment as claimed.

It was said in Weldon v. Superior Court, 138 Cal. 427, [71 Pac. 502]: “The action, so far as it sought to foreclose the lien against the premises, was unquestionably an equitable suit.” In Goldtree v. City of San Diego, 8 Cal. App. 505, [97 Pac. 216], citing that case, it was said: “The contention that the lien is not of equitable cognizance because created by law cannot be considered. Such a distinction would destroy all equitable jurisdiction to carry out the provisions of the code. The remedy for the enforcement of the lien is clearly an equitable one. ’ ’

The jurisdiction is in the supreme court (Const., sec. 4, art. VI), and the case is therefore transferred to that court.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

31 Cal. App. 46, 1916 Cal. App. LEXIS 458, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/emigh-winchell-hardware-co-v-pylman-calctapp-1916.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack