Ascha v. Fitch

Citations

• 5 Cal. Unrep. 481
• 46 P. 298
• 1896 Cal. LEXIS 1100

Syllabus

<p>Mining Lien Claim—Sufficiency—Statement.—Under Code of Civil Procedure, section 1187, which requires the claimant of a lien for labor performed on a mining claim to file for record his claim, containing a statement, among other things, of “the name of the owner or reputed owner, if known, and also the name of the person by whom he was employed,” a lien claim which fails to state by whom the claimant was employed is fatally defective.</p> <p>Mining Claim Lien—Sufficiency of Statement.—A claim for lien, after describing the mining claim, stated that F. was the owner of the claim, “the said lien being held and claimed for and on account of work and labor performed by me as a miner for said F. on said mining claim” for a period definitely stated, “under an agreement with said F.,” etc. Held, that such claim stated by whom the claimant was employed, as required by Code of Civil Procedure, section 1187.</p> <p>Mining Claim Lien.—Such Claim of Lien Contained a Sufficient statement of the “terms, time given, and conditions of the contract,” as required by statute.1</p> <p>Mining Claim Lien.—Where the Precise Words of the Statute have not been used by the claimant of a lien for labor done 'on a mining claim, but substantially equivalent expressions have been resorted to, it is a sufficient compliance with the statute.</p> <p>Mining Claim Lien.—In an Action to Enforce a Lien for Labor Done on a mining claim, where it appears that the claim for lien is insufficient because it fails to state by whom the claimant was employed, the claimant is entitled to a personal judgment against defendant for the amount due him, and it is error to grant a motion for nonsuit.</p>