Sept. 22] with 26 Cal.App.3d at p. 627 [steel installed on Sept. 22].) The facts of Schrader Iron Works, however, did not require the court to address the issue of whether any waivable lien rights arose upon delivery. 4 A11 statutory references are to the Civil Code unless otherwise indicated. 5 E.g., Ensele v. Jolley (1922) 188 Cal. 297, 300 [204 P. 1085] (“in order to entitle a materialman to a lien as against the owner of premises . . . the materials must. . . also have been used therein”); Wilson v. Nugent (1899) 125 Cal. 280, 284 [57 P. 1008] (lack of finding materials furnished were used in building “fatal” to judgment); Roebling Sons Co. v. Bear Val. I. Co. (1893) 99 Cal. 488, 490 [34 P. 80] (quoting Bottomly); Silvesters. Coe Quartz Mine Co. (1889) 80 Cal. 510, 513 [22 P. 217] (<HOLDING>); Holmes v. Richet (1880) 56 Cal. 307, 310
holding plaintiff could not recover on nuisance action to recover for alleged damage to property he does not own or rent holding that plaintiff could recover medical fees not actually paid by the insurance company pursuant to an insurance contract holding lien claimant could not recover for trackiron furnished for use in repairing mine but not actually used holding that prospective buyer of used car could not recover under dealers uim endorsement because uim insurance is not for protection of vehicles but of persons holding that party did not fail to mitigate his damages by not repairing motor home because evidence proved it could not be repaired