Case ID: mich_243/html/0064-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Potter, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

JOHNSON v. RUSSELL.
    Mechanics’ Liens — No Basis Hoe Lien in Absence oe Showing oe Contract Involving Real Estate in Question.
    Where it does not appear that plaintiff or his assignors or any of them performed any service or furnished any materials in pursuance of any contract with the owner, part owner, or lessee of the.real estate, or of any interest therein, here involved, there is no basis for a. mechanic’s lien under 3 Comp. Laws 1915, § 14796.
    Appeal from Washtenaw; Sample (George W.), J.
    
      Submitted April 6, 1928.
    (Docket No. 69, Calendar No. 33,267.)
    Decided June 4, 1928.
    Bill by Walter H. Johnson against Gertrude L. Russell, John A. Burtis and others to foreclose a mechanic’s lien. From a decree for plaintiff, defendant Burtis appeals.
    Reversed, and bill dismissed.
    
      Floyd E. Daggett, for plaintiff.
    
      Lee N. Brown, for appellant.
   Potter, J.

Plaintiff, in his own behalf, and as assignee -of others, filed the bill of complaint herein to establish and foreclose a mechanic’s lien on real estate in the city of Ypsilanti, Michigan. A decree was entered for plaintiff, and defendant John A. Burtis appeals. It does not appear that plaintiff and his assignors, or any of them, performed any service or furnished any materials in pursuance of any contract with the owner, part owner, or lessee of the real estate, or of any interest therein, here involved. There is no basis for a mechanic’s lien. Section 14796, 3 Comp. Laws 1915; Merrill v. Brant, 175 Mich. 182; John Wallace Sons Co. v. Wilkinson, 181 Mich. 693.

The decree herein is reversed and the bill of complaint dismissed, with costs.

Fead, C. J., and North, Fellows, Wiest, Clark, McDonald, and Sharpe, JJ., concurred.