gno.law

Emigh-Winchell Hardware Co. v. Pylman

California Court of Appeal · Civ. No. 1582 · 1916-07-06 · Published · 31 Cal. App. 46 · 1916 Cal. App. LEXIS 458

EMIGH-WINCHELL HARDWARE COMPANY (a Corporation) v. AMOS PYLMAN

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.

This is an action to foreclose a mechanic’s lien and to bring about a sale of the premises should it be. necessary to enforce the payment as claimed.

It was said in Weldon v. Superior Court, 138 Cal. 427, [71 Pac. 502]: “The action, so far as it sought to foreclose the lien against the premises, was unquestionably an equitable suit.” In Goldtree v. City of San Diego, 8 Cal. App. 505, [97 Pac. 216], citing that case, it was said: “The contention that the lien is not of equitable cognizance because created by law cannot be considered. Such a distinction would destroy all equitable jurisdiction to carry out the provisions of the code. The remedy for the enforcement of the lien is clearly an equitable one. ’ ’

The jurisdiction is in the supreme court (Const., sec. 4, art. VI), and the case is therefore transferred to that court.

Cites, in this corpus