Heston v. Martin
11 Cal. 41
Opinion
Field J., conccurring.
This appeal is without merit, and it is apparent that the only point seriously urged by the appellant—to wit: that an account is necessary, giving the items of work and materials in the statement of lien filed— cannot be maintained in case of a contract for a sum in gross.
Judgment affirmed, with ten per cent, damages.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Heston v. Martin, 11 Cal. 41 (Cal. 1858).
11 Cal. 41 (Heston v. Martin) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Johnson v. Smith
276 P. 146 (California Court of Appeal, 1929)
Taylor v. Netherwood
20 S.E. 888 (Supreme Court of Virginia, 1895)
Leftwich Lumber Co. v. Florence Mutual Building, Loan & Savings Ass'n
18 So. 48 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1894)
Jewell v. McKay
23 P. 139 (California Supreme Court, 1889)
Nichols v. Culver
51 Conn. 177 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1883)
Hicks v. Murray
43 Cal. 515 (California Supreme Court, 1872)
Davis v. Livingston
29 Cal. 283 (California Supreme Court, 1865)