Halpin v. Garman
Michigan Supreme Court
Appeal from Wayne; Van Zile, J. Bill by Edward F. Halpin against Emery L. Gar-man and another to enforce a mechanic’s lien. From a decree for complainant, defendants appeal.
1Opinion of the CourtKuhn, J.
(after stating the facts). It is the contention of the defendants’ counsel that the lien as filed, and the bill to foreclose the same, did not contain “a *73just and true statement or account of the demand due him,” as is required by section 5 of chapter 296 (§ 10714, 3 Comp. Laws; § 14800, 3 Comp. Laws 1915). This contention is based on the fact that the amount set up by the plaintiff included the amount due from him to subcontractors, and that, some of the subcontractors having been paid by the defendants before the filing of the lien, the inclusion of the amount due them was a careless and…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Gibbs v. HanchetteMichigan Supreme Court · 1892
- Lamont v. LeFevreMichigan Supreme Court · 1893
- Brennan v. MillerMichigan Supreme Court · 1893
- Scheibner v. CohnenMichigan Supreme Court · 1895
- Griff v. ClarkMichigan Supreme Court · 1909
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Knowlton v. GibbonsMichigan Supreme Court · 1920
- Vorrath v. GarreltsMichigan Court of Appeals · 1971
- Vander Horst v. Kalamazoo Apartments Corp.Michigan Supreme Court · 1927
- Spicer v. DugreyMichigan Supreme Court · 1922
- Craft v. Ratti (In Re Craft)United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Michigan · 1989
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.