Craddock v. Dwight

• Decision Date: 08 May 1891
• Citation: 85 Mich. 587,48 N.W. 644
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court
• Parties: CRADDOCK v. DWIGHT et al.

48 N.W. 644

85 Mich. 587

CRADDOCK v. DWIGHT et al.

Supreme Court of Michigan

May 8, 1891

Error to circuit court, Wayne county.

Bowen, Douglas & Whiting, for appellants.

Conley, Maybury & Lucking, for appellee.

GRANT J.

This suit was brought to enforce a lien under Act 229, Pub. Acts 1887. Plaintiff entered into a written contract with defendants running from January 1, 1887, to January 1, 1888 by which he agreed to manufacture shingles for the defendants from their lumber at $1 per M. for 14 inch, $1.10 per M., for 16 and 18 inch, $0.40 per M. for culls, $0.35 per M additional for fancy butts, and $0.20 per M. for diamond octagon, and other similar shapes. At the expiration of the year there was a verbal renewal of the contract. He filed his statement of lien March 6, 1889, stating that the last day's work and labor was done February 26, 1889, and that the amount due was $3,419.33. April 4th he sued out a writ of attachment, which commanded the sheriff to "seize all the XXX and XX shingles then in the yard of W. M. Dwight and Co., or so much thereof as should be necessary to satisfy," etc. The sheriff seized 8,000 bundles of shingles, more or less. Defendants gave bond under the statute, and the shingles were released. Plaintiff ceased work for defendants February 26th. He had delivered to them all the shingles manufactured prior to February 21st. He had in his possession those manufactured between February 21st and February 26th at the time he filed his statement of lien. Defendants paid plaintiff the amount due for manufacturing them. Plaintiff had also been paid for all that was due him to October 8, 1888. About 3,000,000 were seized by the sheriff. Of these 2,000,000 had been manufactured after October 8, 1888, and the other 1,000,000 prior to that date. At first defendants paid cash for the work done, but from and after January 20, 1887, they requested plaintiff to accept their notes or acceptances. Plaintiff acceded to this, and afterwards plaintiff presented his semi-monthly statements of the amount due, and received notes or acceptances, giving receipt in the following language: "Received ------ months' acceptance for $------, on account." Between October and February 21st he received seven acceptances, four of which he discounted, but none of which were paid by defendants. The jury found a verdict in favor of plaintiff for $3,467.94; that the same was "due for labor and services performed upon a portion of the products described in the declaration, viz., one million and a half XXX shingles, one half million XX shingles, and also certain other shingles delivered said defendants, but not seized under the attachment issued in this cause; subject, however, to the opinion of the court as to whether there can be a greater lien than the sum of $1.00 per M. on the above-mentioned shingles." In reply to a special question, the jury found that they were able to state the quantity of XXX shingles and XX shingles in Dwight & Co.'s yard on March 6, 1889, on which plaintiff performed labor and services between October 8, 1888, and February 21, 1889.

1. It is insisted that this act is unconstitutional. This precise question was raised and decided in Shaw v. Bradley, 59 Mich. 199, 26 N.W. 331, and Reilly v. Stephenson, 62 Mich. 509, 29 N.W. 99. Its constitutionality was settled by those decisions, which have been recognized by many subsequent decisions of this court...