Holland v. Wilson
18 P. 412, 76 Cal. 434, 1888 Cal. LEXIS 905
Opinion
We think the court below ruled correctly in sustaining the demurrer to the portion of the answer numbered 3. The “plans and specifications” referred to in the agreement were a part of the contract, and should have been filed in the recorder’s office under section 1183 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
The averment as to' filing is insufficient, in failing to show that the plans and specifications were filed.
Judgment affirmed.
Searls, C. J., Sharpstein, J., McFarland, J., MeJcinstry, J., and Paterson, J., concurred.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Holland v. Wilson, 18 P. 412, 76 Cal. 434, 1888 Cal. LEXIS 905 (Cal. 1888).
18 P. 412 (Holland v. Wilson) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Burnett v. Glas
97 P. 423 (California Supreme Court, 1908)
Greig v. Riordan
33 P. 913 (California Supreme Court, 1893)
Rebman v. San Gabriel Valley Land & Water Co.
30 P. 564 (California Supreme Court, 1892)
Yancy v. Morton
29 P. 1111 (California Supreme Court, 1892)
Willamette Steam Mills Lumbering & Manufacturing Co. v. Los Angeles College Co.
29 P. 629 (California Supreme Court, 1892)