Smith v. McKnight

California Court of Appeal

Smith v. McKnight

4 P.2d 305, 117 Cal. App. 427, 1931 Cal. App. LEXIS 543

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal

DecidedOctober 10, 1931

DocketDocket No. 6684.

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 4 P.2d 305 (Smith v. McKnight) 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

Smith v. McKnight, 4 P.2d 305, 117 Cal. App. 427, 1931 Cal. App. LEXIS 543 (Cal. Ct. App. 1931).

Pincite

Opinion

BISHOP, J., pro tem.

So far as pertinent to our problem, the provisions of section 19 of the Improvement Act of 1911 are the following (effective in the year 1925) : “Every contractor ... to whom is awarded any contract for street work under this act, shall . . . file ... a good and sufficient bond ... to inure to the benefit of any and all persons . . . who perform labor on, or furnish materials to be used in said work of improvement. . . . Any laborer, materialman . . . whose claim has not been paid . . . may, at any time prior to thirty days after the recording of the assessment ■ for said work, file with the superintendent of streets, a verified statement of his or its claim, together with a statement that the same, or some part thereof, has not been paid. At any time within ninety days after the filing of *428 such claim, the persons . . . filing the same . . . may commence an action ... on said bond . . . ” Because there is neither allegation, nor proof, nor finding of fact, that plaintiff had filed his claim within the time prescribed,_ his judgment, recovered on a bond given under this section by the appealing sureties, must be reversed. This was the conclusion reached in Republic Iron & Steel Co. v. Patillo, (1912) 19 Cal. App. 316 [125 Pac. 923], where provisions of the Vrooman Act, in all essentials identical with the provisions quoted above, were applied. It is a conclusion further supported by Miles v. Baley, (1915) 170 Cal. 151 [149 Pac. 45] ; San Dimas Quarry Co. v. American Surety Co., (1916) 30 Cal. App. 3 [157 Pac. 548] ; Evans v. Shackelford, (1923) 64 Cal. App. 750 [222 Pac. 846], See, also, the discussion in Hub Hardware Co. v. Aetna Accident & Liability Co., (1918) 178 Cal. 264 [173 Pac. 81], and in California Portland Cement Co. v. Boone, (1919) 181 Cal. 35 [183 Pac. 447],

The judgment is reversed in so far as it affects appellants P. H. Dolan and Josephine PI. Dolan.

Conrey, P. J., and York, J., concurred.

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

BISHOP, J., pro tem.

So far as pertinent to our problem, the provisions of section 19 of the Improvement Act of 1911 are the following (effective in the year 1925) : “Every contractor ... to whom is awarded any contract for street work under this act, shall . . . file ... a good and sufficient bond ... to inure to the benefit of any and all persons . . . who perform labor on, or furnish materials to be used in said work of improvement. . . . Any laborer, materialman . . . whose claim has not been paid . . . may, at any time prior to thirty days after the recording of the assessment ■ for said work, file with the superintendent of streets, a verified statement of his or its claim, together with a statement that the same, or some part thereof, has not been paid. At any time within ninety days after the filing of *428 such claim, the persons . . . filing the same . . . may commence an action ... on said bond . . . ” Because there is neither allegation, nor proof, nor finding of fact, that plaintiff had filed his claim within the time prescribed,_ his judgment, recovered on a bond given under this section by the appealing sureties, must be reversed. This was the conclusion reached in Republic Iron & Steel Co. v. Patillo, (1912) 19 Cal. App. 316 [125 Pac. 923], where provisions of the Vrooman Act, in all essentials identical with the provisions quoted above, were applied. It is a conclusion further supported by Miles v. Baley, (1915) 170 Cal. 151 [149 Pac. 45] ; San Dimas Quarry Co. v. American Surety Co., (1916) 30 Cal. App. 3 [157 Pac. 548] ; Evans v. Shackelford, (1923) 64 Cal. App. 750 [222 Pac. 846], See, also, the discussion in Hub Hardware Co. v. Aetna Accident & Liability Co., (1918) 178 Cal. 264 [173 Pac. 81], and in California Portland Cement Co. v. Boone, (1919) 181 Cal. 35 [183 Pac. 447],

The judgment is reversed in so far as it affects appellants P. H. Dolan and Josephine PI. Dolan.

Conrey, P. J., and York, J., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

4 P.2d 305, 117 Cal. App. 427, 1931 Cal. App. LEXIS 543, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smith-v-mcknight-calctapp-1931.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack