Hooper v. Flood

Citations

• 54 Cal. 218

Syllabus

<p>Mechanics’ Lien—Misjoinder of Parties — Agent—Variance—Demurrer.—In an action to foreclose a mechanic’s lien, a contractor or subcontractor is a proper party; but a mere agent, through whom purchases were made by the owner, is not. Accordingly, in such an action against E. and I., where the complaint alleged that the materials were furnished to the former as the agent of the latter: Meld, that the Court below erred in overruling a demurrer for misjoinder of parties, and that the error was not - cured by the subsequent finding of the Court that the materials were furnished to F. as a contractor, and not as a mere agent.</p> <p>Id.—Claim.—To maintain a claim for a mechanic’s lien, a substantial observance of the provisions of the law is required; and an omission to state in the claim the terms, time given, and conditions of the contract under which the work is done or the material furnished, or to state the name of the owner or reputed owner, is fatal. •</p>