Rosenkranz v. Wagner
C. ROSENKRANZ v. PHILIP WAGNER
- Area
- civil
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
The Court:
The Court below found as a fact, defendants were notified orally and in writing, that plaintiff had performed work, etc., for which he claimed sixty dollars and eighteen cents, before defendants madé the payment of five hundred dollars to the contractor.
The finding is entirely without the issues made by the pleadings. The complaint fails to allege that anything was due from defendants to the original contractor when plaintiff’s lien was filed, or that defendants were notified or had any knowledge of the claim of plaintiff, prior to the payment in full of the amount due to the original contractor under his contract. The complaint contains no statement of a cause of action. (Renton v. Conley, 49 Cal. 187; Wells v. Cahn, 51 id. 423; Dingley v. Greene, 54 id. 333.)
Judgment affirmed.
Cited by
- Nason v. John No. 43. · 1905-09-06
- Wiggins v. Bridge No. 11450 · 1886-08-25
- Wilson v. Barnard No. 9349 · 1885-08-28