Holland v. Wilson
J. C. HOLLAND v. WARREN WILSON
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- James D. Thornton (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 — Thornton
'Thornton, J.
We think the court below ruled correctly in sustaining the demurrer to the portion of the answer numbered 3. The “plans and specifications” referred to in the agreement were a part of the contract, and should have been filed in the recorder’s office under section 1183 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
The averment as to' filing is insufficient, in failing to show that the plans and specifications were filed.
Judgment affirmed.
Searls, C. J., Sharpstein, J., McFarland, J., MeJcinstry, J., and Paterson, J., concurred.
Cited by
- Burnett v. Glas Sac. No. 1485. · 1908-09-03
- Greig v. Riordan No. 14960 · 1893-08-16
- Rebman v. San Gabriel Valley Land & Water Co. No. 14708 · 1892-07-23
- Yancy v. Morton No. 14604 · 1892-05-24
- Willamette Steam Mills Lumbering & Manufacturing Co. v. Los Angeles College Co. No. 13639 · 1892-03-31