Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

8 Cal. 344

Montrose v. Conner

California Supreme Court

Decided July 1, 1857

California Supreme Court · decided 1857-07-01

Montrose brought this action against Conner, to recover a claim against him for work and labor on the premises, in San Francisco, for which he had filed a notice of lien, in the office of the county recorder, and made H. R. Payson a party defendant, as a purchaser of the property from Conner’s grantee, subsequent to the completion of the work performed by him.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1857-07-01

How this case has been cited

Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently April 1907

2 state decisions

10185718601870188018901900decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Terry, J., delivered the opinion of the Court—Burnett, J., concurring.

¶1This was an action to enforce a mechanic’s lien on a house in San Francisco, which was erected for defendant Conner, by plaintiff, who in proper time after its completion, filed in the recorder’s office a notice of his lien.

¶2Afterwards Conner sold the premises to defendant, Payson, who purchased bona fide, without actual notice of plaintiff’s lien, and the question presented by the record is whether the description of the premises contained in the notice of lien filed with the recorder, was sufficient to give constructive notice.

¶3“ The act for securing the liens of mechanics and others,” provides that every person desiring to avail himself of the benefits of the act, shall file in the office of the county recorder a notice containing a correct description of the property to be charged with the lien.

¶4*347In the plaintiff's notice, the premises are described as "a dwelling-house lately erected by me for J. W. Conner, situated on Bryant street, between Second and Third streets, in the city ' of San Francisco, on lot-

¶5This is not such a description as is contemplated by the statute; there are a number of lots on Bryant, between Second and Third streets, to any one of which it would apply as well as to the one in question.

¶6The fact that Conner owned no other dwelling on Bryant street, we think immaterial; besides, it does not appear from plaintiff’s notice, nor is it shown that Payson, who is an innocent purchaser, for a valuable consideration, was aware of it.

¶7Judgment reversed, and cause remanded.

/8/cal/344 · .json · Public domain