Harlan v. Stufflebeem

Citations

• 87 Cal. 508
• 25 P. 686
• 1891 Cal. LEXIS 1013

Syllabus

<p>Mechanic’s Lien—Substantial Performance of Contract — Findings — Inconsistency.—In an action to foreclose a mechanic’s lien for painting, varnishing, and graining a building, findings that some small places in the house were not properly grained and finished, and that the cost of properly finishing them would be not more than five dollars, are not inconsistent with a finding that the plaintiff substantially performed his contract.</p> <p>Id. — Substantial Performance Sufficient — Recoupment for Slight Omission — Right of Action. — In contracts for the construction or repair of buildings, a substantial performance is sufficient to entitle the contractor to compensation for the work done under the contract; and if there is'an omission or imperfection so slight that it cannot he regarded as an integral or substantive part of the original contract, and the owner can be compensated therefor by a recoupment for damages, the contractor does not lose his right of action, especially where the owner has received the benefit of what has been done.</p> <p>Id. — Trivial Imperfection, — A trivial imperfection in the work cannot prevent the filing or foreclosure of a lien by the contractor for the work done by him under the contract.</p> <p>Contract — Substantial Performance — Question of Fact — Finding.— Whether a contract has been substantially performed is a question of fact to be determined from the facts and circumstances of the case, and a finding of the trial court thereon is as conclusive as upon any other question of fact.</p> <p>Mechanic’s Lien — Contract with Lessee — Interest of Owner — Failure to Gtve Notice.—The interest of the owner in lands leased is subject to a lien for materials used in the construction of a building thereon, erected under a contract by the lessee, if the owner fails to give notice that he will not be responsible for the same.</p>