Smalley v. Ashland Brown-Stone Co.
Michigan Supreme Court
Appeal from Wayne; Adams, J., presiding. Bill by ’William Smalley and others against the Ash-land Brown-Stone Company, impleaded with Traugofct Schmidt' and others, to enforce a mechanic’s lien. The defendant company filed an answer in the nature of a cross-bill, to which defendant Schmidt demurred. From an order dismissing the answer in so far as it claimed the benefit of a cross-bill, the defendant company appeals.
1Opinion of the CourtMontgomery, J.
Defendant Traugott Schmidt is the owner of a brick building in Detroit, constructed in the summer of 1895. Complainants filed a bill to enforce a mechanic’s lien. Defendant the Ashland Brown-Stone Company filed an answer, claiming the benefit of a cross-bill. To this answer defendant Schmidt demurred, and the demurrer was sustained. Defendant the Ashland Brown-Stone Company appeals.
1. Some criticism is made of the practice of asserting a lien by an answer in the nature of a cross-bill, but the *106right to do so is affirmed in Smalley v. Terra-Cotta Co., 113 Mich. 141. Criticism is also made of…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Georgia Railroad & Banking Co. v. SmithSupreme Court of the United States · 1888
- Stanley v. ColtSupreme Court of the United States · 1867
- Kirkwood v. HoxieMichigan Supreme Court · 1893
- Smalley v. Northwestern Terra-Cotta Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1897
- Lamont v. LeFevreMichigan Supreme Court · 1893
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by24 opinions
- Grand Traverse County v. StateMichigan Supreme Court · 1995
- Southern Surety Co. v. MacMillan Co.Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1932
- Knowlton v. GibbonsMichigan Supreme Court · 1920
- Burton Drywall, Inc. v. KaufmanMichigan Court of Appeals · 1976
- Burton Drywall, Inc. v. KaufmanMichigan Supreme Court · 1978
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.