Hendrickson v. Bertelson, 35 P.2d 318 (Cal. 1934). · Go Syfert
Search
Hendrickson v. Bertelson, 35 P.2d 318 (Cal. 1934). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
51 citation events across 6 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Burton v. Sosinsky (calctapp, 1988-08-03)
Treatment trajectory · 1938 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1938 1982 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 18 distinct citers.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Burton v. Sosinsky
Cal. Ct. App. · 1988 · confidence medium
(Hendrickson v. Bertelson (1934) 1 Cal.2d 430, 434 [ 35 P.2d 318 ]; Blodgett v. Haddock (1949) 95 Cal.App.2d 17, 18 [ 212 P.2d 26 ].) Burton quotes the following language: “Liens of mechanics or materialmen will not be held invalid unless they tend to defraud or fail to impart notice.” (Consolidated Pipe Co. v. Wolski (1931) 211 Cal. 563, 564 [ 296 P. 277 ].) This quotation from Chief Justice Waste’s opinion in Consolidated Pipe v. Wolski stemmed from a repudiation of the prior practice that even though a mechanic or materialman filed a timely claim, if technical mistakes were subsequent…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Bentz Plumbing & Heating v. Favaloro
Cal. Ct. App. · 1982 · confidence medium
The construction urged by defendants would defeat the legislative purpose of the statute to protect lienholders against having to consent to impairment of their rights for lack of bargaining power. “[T]he courts *149 have uniformly classified the mechanics’ lien law as remedial legislation, to be liberally construed for the protection of laborers and materialmen.” (Fn. omitted.) (Connolly Development, Inc. v. Superior Court (1976) 17 Cal.3d 803, 826-827 [ 132 Cal.Rptr. 477 , 553 P.2d 637 ]; Hendrickson v. Bertelson (1934) 1 Cal.2d 430, 432 [ 35 P.2d 318 ].) Civil Code section 3262 was am…
examined Cited as authority (rule) Connolly Development, Inc. v. Superior Court (3×) also: Cited "see"
Cal. · 1976 · confidence medium
Co. (1908) 7 Cal. App. 460, 461 [ 94 P. 775 ]. [22] Article XX, section 15 provides as follows: "Mechanics, persons furnishing materials, artisans, and laborers of every class, shall have a lien upon the property upon which they have bestowed labor or furnished material for the value of such labor done and material furnished; and the Legislature shall provide, by law, for the speedy and efficient enforcement of such liens." [23] See Tuttle v. Montford, supra, 7 Cal. 358, 360 ; Homestead Sav. & Loan Assn. v. Superior Court (1961) 195 Cal. App.2d 697, 700 [ 16 Cal. Rptr. 121 ]; MacQuiddy v. Rice…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Pacific Coast Refrigeration, Inc. v. Badger
Cal. Ct. App. · 1975 · confidence medium
(See Hendrickson v. Bertelson (1934) 1 Cal.2d 430, 432 [ 35 P.2d 318].) It has been noted that there was frequent amendment of the lien laws at earlier sessions of the legislature (see Booth v. Pendola *243 (1891) 88 Cal. 36, 42 [ 23 P. 200 , 25 P. 1101 ]) and that “the amending process has been one of liberalization in favor of those who bestow services on the structure or land.” (Nolte v. Smith (1961) 189 Cal.App.2d 140, 144 [ 11 Cal.Rptr. 261 , 87 A.L.R.2d 996 ].) This does not mean, however, that the mechanic should get more than his due, or more than he had a right to anticipate he wo…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) ED McGILLICUDDY CONSTR. v. KNOLL RECREATION ASSN
Cal. Ct. App. · 1973 · confidence medium
But if there were doubt about the meaning, it should be resolved in favor of the lien claimant, first, because of the *898 policy to construe the mechanic's lien law with a view to effect its objects and to promote justice ( Hendrickson v. Bertelson, 1 Cal.2d 430, 432-433 [ 35 P.2d 318 ]; B. & J.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) E. D. McGillicuddy Construction Co. v. Knoll Recreation Ass'n
Cal. Ct. App. · 1973 · confidence medium
But if there were doubt about the meaning, it should be resolved in favor of the lien claimant, first, because of the policy to construe the mechanic’s lien law with a view to effect its objects and to promote justice (Hendrickson v. Bertelson, 1 Cal.2d 430, 432-433 [ 35 P.2d 318 ]; B. & J.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) A. J. Raisch Paving Co. v. Mountain View Savings & Loan Ass'n
Cal. Ct. App. · 1972 · confidence medium
Proceedings for the foreclosure of a mechanic’s hen are proceedings in equity in which the court will apply equitable principles (Laubisch v. Roberdo, 43 Cal.2d 702, 709 [ 277 P.2d 9 ]; Hendrickson v. Bertelson, 1 Cal.2d 430, 434 [ 35 P.2d 318 ]; Curnow v. Happy Valley Blue Gravel etc. Co., 68 Cal. 262, 264 [ 9 P. 149 ]; A. A. Baxter Corp. v. Home Owners & Lenders, 7 Cal.App.3d 725, 732 [ 86 Cal.Rptr. 854 ]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) A. A. Baxter Corp. v. Home Owners & Lenders
Cal. Ct. App. · 1970 · confidence medium
(Laubisch v. Roberdo, 43 Cal.2d 702, 709 [ 277 P.2d 9 ]; Hendrickson v. Bertelson, 1 Cal.2d 430, 434 [ 35 P.2d 18 ]; Curnow v. Happy Valley Blue Gravel etc. Co., 68 Cal. 262, 264 [ 9 P. 149 ].) Where work is performed on an entire tract there is a difference between limiting enforcement of the contractor’s lien to a part of the tract and permitting the contractor to claim a lien upon only a part of the tract, particularly where, as in the case at bench, the owners of the part of the tract upon which the contractor claims a lien became such after the work was completed and before the claim of…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Sunlight Electric Supply Co. v. McKee
Cal. Ct. App. · 1964 · confidence medium
It “is remedial in character, and should be liberally construed in its entirety with a view to effect its objects and to promote justice.” (Hendrickson v. Bertelson, 1 Cal.2d 430, 432 [ 35 P.2d 318 ]; Nolte v. Smith, 189 Cal.App.2d 140, 144 [ 11 Cal.Rptr. 261 , 87 A.L.R.2d 996 ].) There would seem to be no cogent reason why all rules applicable to both should not apply with equal effect to both in the absence of specific legislative mandate to the contrary.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) H. O. Bragg Roofing, Inc. v. First Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n
Cal. Ct. App. · 1964 · confidence medium
(Hendrickson v. Bertelson, 1 Cal.2d 430, 432 [ 35 P.2d 318 ]; Fredericksen v. Harney, 199 Cal.App.2d 189, 195 [ 18 Cal.Rptr. 562 ].) It is designed to protect mechanics and materialmen who furnish labor and materials that go to enhance the value of the owner’s property, an enhancement to *28 be paid for out of the building fund.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Rossman Mill & Lumber Co. v. Fullerton Savings & Loan Ass'n
Cal. Ct. App. · 1963 · confidence medium
(Hendrickson v. Bertelson, 1 Cal.2d 430, 432 [ 35 P.2d 318 ]; Fredericksen v. Harney, 199 Cal.App.2d 189, 195 [ 18 Cal.Rptr. 562 ].) It is designed to protect mechanics and materialmen who furnish labor and materials that go to enhance the value of the owner’s property, an enhancement to be paid for out of the building fund.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Western Specialty Co. v. Clairemont Construction Co.
Cal. Ct. App. · 1962 · confidence medium
(Hendrickson v. Bertelson, 1 Cal.2d 430, 433 [2, 3] [ 35 P.2d 318 ].) Release op Lien Defendants claim that Western waived its lien rights to all except five lots.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Fredericksen v. Harney
Cal. Ct. App. · 1962 · confidence medium
Co., 164 Cal. 517 [ 129 P. 774 ]; Martin v. Becker, 169 Cal. 301 [ 146 P. 665 , Ann.Cas. 1916D 171]; Nolte v. Smith, 189 Cal.App.2d 140 [ 11 Cal.Rptr. 261 ]; Hendrickson v. Bertelson, 1 Cal.2d 430, 432 [ 35 P.2d 318 ].) Although it is a novel question, apparently never specifically determined by the courts of this state, it would appear reasonable in proper circumstances, to allow a lien to a materialman whose property has been tortiously incorporated in a structure, if he waives the tort and relies upon implied contract.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Homestead Savings & Loan Ass'n v. Superior Court
Cal. Ct. App. · 1961 · confidence medium
(Hendrickson v. Bertelson, 1 Cal.2d 430, 432 [ 35 P.2d 318 ]; MacQuiddy v. Rice, 47 Cal.App.2d 755 , *701 757 [ 118 P.2d 853 ].) The time in which to file for record a mechanic’s lien is relatively short.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Nolte v. Smith
Cal. Ct. App. · 1961 · confidence medium
It is a right provided “. . . by the organic law, and shall not be lightly considered. . . , the entire purpose of the laws providing for liens of mechanics or materialmen is to secure to them payment for the labor performed or material furnished.” (Bay Lumber Co. v. Pickering, 120 Cal.App. 163, at p. 167 [ 7 P.2d 371 ].) “The mechanics’ lien law is remedial in character, and should be liberally construed in its entirety with a view to effect its objects and' to promote justice.” (Hendrickson v. Bertelson, 1 Cal.2d 430, 432 [ 35 P.2d 318 ].) The doctrine upon which section 1192 [now …
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Patten-Blinn Lumber Co. v. Francis
Cal. Ct. App. · 1958 · confidence medium
Conceding that the general rule is and has been that mechanic’s lien law is remedial in character and should be liberally construed in its entirety with a view to effect its objects and to promote justice (Hendrickson v. Bertelson, 1 Cal.2d 430, 432 [ 35 P.2d 318 ]), respondent nevertheless, earnestly argues that the Legislature is equally bound to consider and protect the rights of owners of property which may be affected by such liens (Diamond Match Co. v. Sanitary Fruit Co., 70 Cal.App. 695, 701 [ 234 P. 322 ]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Blodgett v. Haddock
Cal. Ct. App. · 1949 · confidence medium
(Hendrickson v. Bertelson, 1 Cal.2d 430, 434 [ 35 P.2d 318 ].) The court below found that appellant occupies real property whose title reverted to his codefendants and to the respondents upon the decease of Anna Haddock.
discussed Cited "see" Michael Weller Inc. v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. (2×)
Ariz. Ct. App. · 1980 · signal: see · confidence high
See Hendrickson v. Bertelson, 1 Cal.2d 430 , 35 P.2d 318 (1934).
A. HENDRICKSON, Respondent,
v.
C. S. BERTELSON Et Al., Appellants; LEON T. SMITH Et Al., Cross-Complainants and Respondents
Sac. 4784.
California Supreme Court.
Aug 16, 1934.
35 P.2d 318
Breed, Burpee & Robinson and A. W. Wylie for Appellants., J. S. Henderson and C. S. Baldwin for Respondents.
Waste.
Cited by 26 opinions  |  Published
WASTE, C. J.

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Modoc County foreclosing liens of materialmen, and ordering a sale of real property to satisfy the same.

The defendant Bertelson engaged in the construction of six dwellings upon six adjacent lots in Mountain View subdivision of Alturas. The building operations were to be financed by construction loans advanced by the defendant and appellant, California Mutual Building & Loan Association, secured by trust deeds bn each of the six lots. The[*432] contracts with the plaintiff and the defendant and cross-complainant Alturas Building Material Company were what are known as “lump sum” contracts, with but one consideration, and the building materials were to be furnished for all six dwellings without separate designations. The building and loan association commenced making advances when it was discovered that deliveries of material to three of the lots had been made, which would have affected the priority of its liens. It thereupon refused to make further advances. To meet this situation, both lien claimants executed waivers of liens as to these three lots, and the construction work thereupon proceeded upon all six houses. Thereafter it became necessary for the materialmen to file liens against the three lots, as to which waivers had not been given, for the unpaid balances due upon the lump sum contracts for the materials furnished. For the reasons hereinafter explained, they could not make separate designations of materials furnished each construction, as required by section 1188 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The plaintiff’s claim was for $249.90, and the cross-complainant’s claim was for $1210.93. No question of value is raised, and no notice of completion was ever filed.

The action having been tried, the court rendered judgment for the full amount of plaintiff’s claim, and costs, and for cross-complainant’s claim, and costs, and decreed that plaintiff and cross-complainant have liens for one-half the amount of their respective claims with costs as against said three lots, apportioning the said amounts in equal portions as against each of said lots. It was decreed that no priority existed in favor of either of said liens, and that the same were prior and superior to all rights of the California Mutual Building & Loan Association, holder of the trust deeds, and that said liens be foreclosed and the lots sold to satisfy the same.

Appellants contend that the liens are void by reason of the failure of the lien claimants to designate the amounts of their claims as against the individual lots, as required by section 1188' of the. Code "of Civil Procedure, and that the trial court was without power to make any apportionment of the liens as against the waiver-free lots.

The mechanics’ lien law is remedial in character, and should be liberally construed in its entirety with a[*433] view to effect its objects and to promote justice. (Hammond Lumber Co. v. Barth Investment Corp., 202 Cal. 606, 610 [262 Pac. 31].) While section 1188 does provide that where a claim of lien is filed against two or more buildings, the lien claimant must, at the same time,' desigonate the amount due on each of such buildings, it has been held not to require impossibilities, and that “the only effect of a failure to designate the amount due on each of two or more structures for which one claim is filed is to postpone the lien to those of other claimants”. (17 Cal. Jur., p. 145.) In Warren v. Hopkins, 110 Cal. 506, 510 [42 Pac. 986], it is said: “While section 1188 requires the claimant who files a lien against two or more buildings, or other improvements, to designate the specific amount for which he claims a lien upon each of such ‘improvements’, it does not require him to make such designation unless there is in fact a specific amount due to him on each of such improvements, and it might frequently happen that a contractor would construct several buildings under one contract, and there would not be any specific amount due to him on each of such buildings.” The District Court of Appeal for the Third Appellate District said in Southern California Lumber Co. v. Peters, 3 Cal. App. 478, 479 [86 Pac. 816] : “It will not be held that the legislature intended to defeat the application of the lien law to a particular class of cases by requiring the performance of something impossible; but, on the contrary, the mechanics’ lien law, being remedial in its nature, will be given a liberal interpretation to promote justice and carry out its general purpose, and it will be presumed that in enacting section 1188, Code of Civil Procedure, the legislature had in mind those cases only where it was possible to designate the amount due on each of several buildings and did not intend that the section should apply to any other class of cases.”

The trial court found specifically that defendant Bertelson purchased of the lien claimants building materials as specified, and generally, “all to be used, and all of which was used in the construction of said six dwelling houses; that said materials were furnished and delivered upon the ground where the construction of said dwelling houses was in progress on single orders and as one contract without[*434] any designation as to the amount of said materials to be used in any particular or specified dwelling house; ...”

This finding is not only fully supported by evidence, but might have been supplemented by the evidence showing that no separate records were kept by the lien claimants as to delivery of particular materials to particular improvements,. the deliveries being on the ground to the job as a whole, and the impossibility, therefore, of segregating and designating the same in the claims of lien. We are constrained, therefore, to hold that the lien claimants, under these circumstances, were not required to do the impossible, and were excused from complying with the statutory requirement of section 1188 that the lien claimants designate the amount due upon each of the structures or improvements to which materials were delivered.

The remaining question, as to the power of the trial court to apportion the liens to the respective lots, finds answer in the fact that actions to foreclose such liens are in this state regarded in the nature of judicial proceedings in equity. (Curnow v. Happy Valley Blue Gravel etc. Co., 68 Cal. 262 [9 Pac. 149]; Coghlam, v. Salvatore Quartararo, 15 Cal. App. 662 [115 Pac. 664]; 17 Cal. Jur. 166; note, Ann. Cas. 1913B, 283.) “When a court of equity has once obtained jurisdiction, it will do complete justice by deciding the whole case.” (Watson v. Sutro, 86 Cal. 500, 528 [24 Pac. 172, 25 Pac. 64].)

It was therefore properly within the jurisdiction of the court as a court of equity, and in line with the spirit of the mechanics’ lien law and constitutional provision, to apportion the amounts of the respective liens decreed as against the lots as to which no waivers were filed, and thereby preserve to the materialmen liens their priority over the liens of the trust deeds. “Equity regards that as done which ought to have been done.” (10 Cal. Jur. 505.)

Other points raised by appellants are deemed immaterial in view of the conclusions reached.

The judgment is affirmed.

Curtis, J., Preston, J., and Shenk, J., concurred.