gno.law

Santa Cruz Portland Cement Co. v. County of Santa Clara

California Supreme Court · S. F. No. 10394. · 1923-08-02 · Published · 217 P. 520 · 191 Cal. 578 · 1923 Cal. LEXIS 486

SANTA CRUZ PORTLAND CEMENT COMPANY (A Corporation), Appellant, Cross-Defendant and Respondent, v. COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA (A Corporation), Et Al., Defendants; E. B. & A. L. STONE COMPANY (A Corporation), Defendant, Respondent, Cross-Plaintiff and Appellant

Proceeding
appeal from a judgment
Trial court
Superior Court of Santa Clara County
Trial judge
J. R. Welch
Outcome
affirmed — Affirmed.
Area
civil
Panel
Curtis D. Wilbur (author)

Analysis

No analysis yet. When one exists it is a model's reading of this opinion — the rulings it reviewed, whether it agrees with the court, and the authorities it checked — shown beside the court's own disposition, never in place of it. How analyses are made.

Opinion — Wilbur

WILBUR, C. J.

The appellants in this ease concede that the judgment of the trial court is correct and must be affirmed unless we overrule the decision of Slayden v. O’Dea, 182 Cal. 500 [189 Pac. 1066], to the effect that a stop notice under section 1184 of the Code of Civil Procedure does not apply to work done in grading a public highway. That decision has been frequently referred to and followed in subsequent decisions and has resulted in an amendment to section 1184 of the Code of Civil Procedure. (Stats. 1921, p. 144;

Hunt v. Empire Securities Co., 50 Cal. App. 43 [194 Pac. 744] ;

Cotton-Macauley Co.

v. De Shields, 188 Cal. 102 [204 Pac. 386];

McMorry v. Superior Court, 54 Cal.

*579 App. 76 [201 Pac. 797] ;

County of Sutter v. Superior Court of Sacramento Co., 188 Cal. 292 [204 Pac. 849].)

[1]

Under these circumstances, even if we considered that that decision was erroneous, as applied to public streets, we must now adhere to the decision upon the principle of stare decisis, particularly as all of the work done upon public streets, and all payments and adjustments thereunder have been made upon the faith of that decision. This, respondents contend, was done in this case.

Judgment affirmed.

Myers, J., Waste, J., Seawell, J., Kerrigan, J., Richards, J., pro tern., and Lawlor, J., concurred.

Cites, in this corpus