Mannix v. Tryon

California Court of Appeal

Mannix v. Tryon

84 P. 278, 2 Cal. App. 609, 1906 Cal. App. LEXIS 3

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal

DecidedJanuary 3, 1906

DocketCiv. No. 137.

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 84 P. 278 (Mannix v. Tryon) 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

Mannix v. Tryon, 84 P. 278, 2 Cal. App. 609, 1906 Cal. App. LEXIS 3 (Cal. Ct. App. 1906).

Pincite

Opinion

McLAUGHLIN, J.

This is a motion to dismiss an appeal from a judgment foreclosing the lien of a subcontractor. The appeal is prosecuted by the owner of the premises, and respondent bases the pending motion on the ground that no notice of appeal was served upon the original contractor, who was a party defendant. Appellant, resisting the motion, contends that such contractor is not an adverse party, because reversal will aid instead of injuring' him. This contention rests on the proposition that as the judgment against the original contractor is for the sum of $187 it must fall if the lien is declared invalid. (Miller v. Carlisle, 127 Cal. 327, [59 Pac. 785].) Of course, this would depend upon the reasons which rendered reversal necessary. Reversal for mere error would simply add the expenses of a new trial to the burdens of the original contractor, while reversal for reasons which destroyed the lien would probably have the effect claimed by appellant.

The point involves the examination of the transcript, which contains seventy-six pages, and upon the authority of Hibernia Sav. etc. Soc. v. Behnke, 118 Cal. 498, [50 Pac. 666], the motion is continued until the hearing upon the appeal, with permission to respondent to include the points in support of the motion in his brief, to which appellant may reply.

Chipman, P. J., and Buckles, J., concurred.

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

McLAUGHLIN, J.

This is a motion to dismiss an appeal from a judgment foreclosing the lien of a subcontractor. The appeal is prosecuted by the owner of the premises, and respondent bases the pending motion on the ground that no notice of appeal was served upon the original contractor, who was a party defendant. Appellant, resisting the motion, contends that such contractor is not an adverse party, because reversal will aid instead of injuring' him. This contention rests on the proposition that as the judgment against the original contractor is for the sum of $187 it must fall if the lien is declared invalid. (Miller v. Carlisle, 127 Cal. 327, [59 Pac. 785].) Of course, this would depend upon the reasons which rendered reversal necessary. Reversal for mere error would simply add the expenses of a new trial to the burdens of the original contractor, while reversal for reasons which destroyed the lien would probably have the effect claimed by appellant.

The point involves the examination of the transcript, which contains seventy-six pages, and upon the authority of Hibernia Sav. etc. Soc. v. Behnke, 118 Cal. 498, [50 Pac. 666], the motion is continued until the hearing upon the appeal, with permission to respondent to include the points in support of the motion in his brief, to which appellant may reply.

Chipman, P. J., and Buckles, J., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

84 P. 278, 2 Cal. App. 609, 1906 Cal. App. LEXIS 3, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mannix-v-tryon-calctapp-1906.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack