Worden v. Hammond

Citations

• 37 Cal. 61

Syllabus

<p>Mechanic’s Lien Act of 1862—Written Contracts under it,—It appeared at the trial of an action hy W. against H. to foreclose a mechanic’s lien under the Act concerning the liens of mechanics and others, (Stats. 1862, p. 3S4,) that II. entered into a contract with W., hy which W. agreed to huild upon the lot of II. a barn, “ agreeable to the drafts, plan, and explanation hereto annexed, marked 'A/ ” and II. agreed to pay for the same three hundred and twenty dollars, “ upon the completion of said barn, as per specifications;” that, in fact, no draft, plan, or specifications were attached to the contract, but an unsigned paper was produced, and testimony received, under the objection of H., tending to prove that • it contained the plans and specifications alluded to in the contract; Held, first, ttíat “the specifications” were an essential part of tho contract; second, that the reference made in the contract to “the specifications” being false, cannot bo helped out by oral evidence; and third, that without “ the specifications ” there was not such fl'a contract in writing, subscribed by the party to he charged thereby,” as is required by the second section of said Act to entitle the contractor to acquire the lien therein provided for.</p> <p>Idem—To what Interest the Lien Attaches.—Said Act provides only for the acquisition by the contractor of a lien on the interest of the employer in the property sought to be charged, whether that he a fee simple interest or less.</p> <p>Idem.—T. was the owner of a lot of land, of which II. was in possession, under a contract of sale from T.; W. erected a building on the lot, under a contract made by him with II., and against T. and II. recovered judgment enforcing a lien for the contract price on the interests of both T. and H. in the land; Held, that *WVs lien did not affect the interest of T., and that T. was improperly made a party to the action.</p>