116 Cal. 333 | Cal. | 1897
This is an action brought by plaintiff to charge the property of the corporation defendant with a lien for certain work done by appellant in cleaning out a tunnel on the mining property of respondent. The action was brought against M. E. Crittenden, E. C. Lyles, and respondent, it being alleged that the labor was performed at the special instance and request of defendants Lyles and Crittenden, and that the latter was at the time in charge of said mine, and acting as the agent of the defendant mining company.
The court found that the work was performed for and at the special instance and request of defendants Lyles and Crittenden, but under a written contract set out in
It is further found that the defendant mining company “had no notice or knowledge whatever that plaintiff was performing any work whatever upon the mining property ” sought to be charged with the lien.
Upon these findings judgment was given in favor of the corporation defendant denying the lien, and the only material question in the case is as to whether the evidence supports the findings.
It would subserve no useful purpose to state the evidence at length, or even in substance. It is sufficient to say that upon a careful review we find in the record evidence substantially tending to support each of the findings in question, and this under firmly established principles concludes our further inquiry.
It is urged, however, in effect that the mining company had constructive, if not actual, notice of the doing of the work; that the directors and officers of a corporation are its agents, through whom alone it can act, and that the defendant Crittenden being a director at the time the work was done, her knowledge of the work is imputable to the corporation; that having such knowledge, it was incumbent upon the latter, in order to avoid liability, to post a notice on its mine, as required by section 1192 of the Code of Civil Procedure,
The judgment and order are affirmed.
Harrison, J., and Beatty, C. J., concurred.