Emigh-Winchell Hdw. Co. v. Pylman

31 Cal. App. 46
California Court of Appeal·Decided July 6, 1916·No. Civ. No. 1582.·Published

Opinion

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 P. 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 P. 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. *Page 47

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

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

31 Cal. App. 46 (Emigh-Winchell Hdw. Co. v. Pylman) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Goldtree v. City of San Diego
97 P. 216 (California Court of Appeal, 1908)
Weldon v. Superior Court
71 P. 502 (California Supreme Court, 1903)