Union Tool Company v. Arthur Lee Porter

California Court of Appeal

Union Tool Company v. Arthur Lee Porter

257 P. 163, 83 Cal. App. 798, 1927 Cal. App. LEXIS 725

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal

DecidedJune 13, 1927

DocketDocket No. 4671.

StatusPublished

This text of 257 P. 163 (Union Tool Company v. Arthur Lee Porter) 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

Union Tool Company v. Arthur Lee Porter, 257 P. 163, 83 Cal. App. 798, 1927 Cal. App. LEXIS 725 (Cal. Ct. App. 1927).

Pincite

Opinion

The action involved in this appeal was filed against the same defendants as those named in that of the California National Supply Company, this day decided, and was instituted for the foreclosure of the appellant's mechanic's lien upon the same property and for materials furnished for the same project, as therein described. Both cases were tried together upon similar facts, and the findings, conclusions of law, and judgments are the same in form and effect. [1] Hence, upon the authority ofCalifornia National Supply Co. v. Porter, ante, p. 758 [257 P. 161], the judgment in this case must be affirmed, and it is so ordered.

Thompson, J., and Murphey, J., pro tem., concurred.

*Page 1

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

The action involved in this appeal was filed against the same defendants as those named in that of the California National Supply Company, this day decided, and was instituted for the foreclosure of the appellant's mechanic's lien upon the same property and for materials furnished for the same project, as therein described. Both cases were tried together upon similar facts, and the findings, conclusions of law, and judgments are the same in form and effect. [1] Hence, upon the authority ofCalifornia National Supply Co. v. Porter, ante, p. 758 [257 P. 161], the judgment in this case must be affirmed, and it is so ordered.

Thompson, J., and Murphey, J., pro tem., concurred.

*Page 1

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

257 P. 163, 83 Cal. App. 798, 1927 Cal. App. LEXIS 725, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/union-tool-company-v-arthur-lee-porter-calctapp-1927.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack