
    DOGGETT v. BELLOWS and Others.
    No. 8714;
    March 24, 1885.
    6 Pac. 421.
    Mechanic’s Lien.—In an Action for the Foreclosure of a Mechanic’s Lien, the complaint should aver the amount due under the contract to the contractor from the owner of the building on which the work was done.
    APPEAL from the Superior Court of the County of Mendocino.
    Action to foreclose a mechanic’s lien by plaintiff, who was a laborer employed by defendant to work on a flume, under a contract by defendant with the Mendocino Flume & Mining Company.
    E. T. Case for appellant; Gillespie & Hamilton for respondent.
   By the COURT.

Action to foreclose a mechanic’s lien. There is no averment in the complaint that any sum was due from the Mendocino Flume & Mining Company, the owner, to Bellows the contractor; therefore the demurrer of the company to the complaint should have been sustained: Latson v. Nelson, 11 Pac. C. L. J. 589; Whittier v. Hollister, 64 Cal. 283, 30 Pac. 846.

The judgment, so far as it concerns the Mendocino Flume & Mining Company, is reversed, and the cause is remanded with directions to sustain the demurrer above referred to.  