Opinion
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County.
COUNSEL:
The statute does not require that the plans and specifications should be filed. (Code Civ. Proc., secs. 1183, 1184; Budd v. Lucky , 28 N. J. L. 484.)
M. A. Luce, for Appellant.
Collier & Collier, for Respondent.
The plans and specifications formed part of the contract, and should have been filed. (Code Civ. Proc., secs. 1183, 1184; Phillips on Mechanics' Liens, sec. 363; Babbitt v. Condon , 27 N. J. L. 162; Ayers v. Revere , 25 N. J. L. 474.)
JUDGES: In Bank. Thornton, J. Searls, C. J., Sharpstein, J., McFarland, J., McKinstry, J., and Paterson, J., concurred.
OPINION
THORNTON, Judge
We think the court below ruled directly 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.
[18 P. 413] The averment as to filing is insufficient, in failing to show that the plans and specifications were filed.
Judgment affirmed.