
    HESTON v. MARTIN.
    In a mechanic’s lien, it is not necessary to give the items of the work and materials, in the statement of the lien filed, where the contract for the construction of the building is in a sum in gross.
    Appeal from the District Court of the Twelfth Judicial District, County of San Francisco.
    This was an action to enforce a mechanic’s lien, for the construction of a house and materials furnished.
    Plaintiff made a written contract with the defendant for the construction of a house. Defendant was to pay therefor a specified sum in instalments.
    The case was tried by the Court, and judgment rendered for the defendants—the Court finding that, under the contract, there was nothing due. By a stipulation entered into, it was agreed to submit to the Court for its decision, the question, whether the amount of 12,080.75—this being the balance due under the contract—was a lien upon the premises. The Court rendered a decision establishing a lien to this amount, from which decision this appeal is taken.
    
      Robert C. & Daniel Rogers for Appellant.
    
      Harmon & Labatt for Respondent.
   Baldwin, J., delivered the opinion of the Court

Field J., conccurring.

This appeal is without merit, and it is apparent that the only point seriously urged by the appellant—to wit: that an account is necessary, giving the items of work and materials in the statement of lien filed— cannot be maintained in case of a contract for a sum in gross.

Judgment affirmed, with ten per cent, damages.  