Mielis v. Everts, 108.
| Decision Date | 29 August 1933 |
| Docket Number | No. 108.,108. |
| Citation | 249 N.W. 875,264 Mich. 363 |
| Parties | MIELIS v. EVERTS et al. |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Circuit Court, Macomb County; James E. Spier, Judge.
Suit by Albert Mielis against Frank C. Everts and others, wherein defendant Gustav Schmidt filed a cross-bill. From an adverse decree, Frank C. Everts and Mary M. Everts appeal.
Affirmed.
Argued before the Entire Court.Lewis Daniels, of Detroit, for Frank C. and Mary M. Evarts and Benjamin H. Jackson.
Henry P. Fischer and Ray v. Richards, both of Detroit, for Gustav schmidt.
Lungerhausen, Weeks, Lungerhausen & Neale, of Mount Clemens, for Albert Mielis.
This is a bill to foreclose a mechanic's lien in the amount of $317 for mason work on a building on land of which Frank C. Everts and Mary M. Everts were owners of the fee, and Fred Krueger was the contract purchaser. In a cross-bill, defendant Gustav Schmidt also asked for the foreclosure of his lien of $950 for the installation of the heating and plumbing. Defendant Benjamin H. Jackson was made a party because he had a mortgage on the premises which he had taken in lieu of his mechanic's lien. The defendants, Everts and wife, contested the validity of the liens for the reason that no notice of intention to claim a lien was served on them as owners as required by section 13101, C. L. 1929; that statements of account and lien were not filed within sixty days after the last work was performed in compliance with section 13105, C. L. 1929; and that service of the statement of account and lien was not served in Macomb county where the property was located. At the conclusion of the hearing the trial court held that the plaintiff and cross-plaintiff had valid liens on the building, and decreed their foreclosure. The defendants Frank C. Everts and Mary M. Everts, have appealed.
It was not necessary. The lien claimants were dealing with the part owner, not with a contractor. Section 13101, C. L. 1929; Smalley v. Ashland Brown-Stone Company, 114 Mich. 104, 72 N. W. 29.
This contention involved a question of fact which was determined by the trial court adversely to the defendants' claim. Our examination of the testimony leads us to the same conclusion. The work was necessary to a completion of the contract and was performed in good faith. The defendants' contention in respect to this question is without merit.
3. It is claimed the lien was invalid because service of the statements of account and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Williams & Works, Inc. v. Springfield Corp.
...deal directly with the owner. Wallich Lumber Co. v. Golds, 375 Mich. 323, 328-329, 134 N.W.2d 722 (1965); Mielis v. Everts, 264 Mich. 363, 364, 249 N.W. 875, 876 (1933); J. Altman Companies, Inc. v. Saginaw Plumbing & Heating Supply Co., 42 Mich.App. 747, 753-754, 202 N.W.2d 707, 711 (1972)......
-
Burton Drywall, Inc. v. Kaufman
...serve a notice of intent to claim a lien, where the lien claimant is dealing with the owner and not a contractor. Mielis v. Everts, 264 Mich. 363, 364, 249 N.W. 875 (1933). Since Mielis, no case law has examined the authority for such an exception, although subsequent cases have explained i......
-
Burton Drywall, Inc. v. Kaufman
...the right to a mechanic's lien, one who deals directly with an owner must give notice of intention to claim a lien. In Mielis v. Everts, 264 Mich. 363, 249 N.W. 875 (1933), this Court held that notice was not required where the lien claimant and the owner dealt directly with each The Court ......
-
P. H. I. Const. Co. v. Riverview Commons Associates
...is not required to file notice of intent to claim a lien, even after the amendment to the statute by 1929 P.A. 264. Mielis v. Everts, 264 Mich. 363, 364, 249 N.W. 875 (1933); Wallich Lumber Co. v. Golds, 375 Mich. 323, 328, 134 N.W.2d 722 (1965). Members of the construction industry have un......