Case Name: SCHEIBNER v. COHNEN
Court: Michigan Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Michigan
Decision Date: 1895-12-31
Citations: 108 Mich. 165
Docket Number: 
Parties: SCHEIBNER v. COHNEN.
Judges: McGrath, O. J., Montgomery and Hooker, JJ., concurred with Long, J.
Reporter: Michigan Reports
Volume: 108
Pages: 165–168

Head Matter:
SCHEIBNER v. COHNEN.
Mechanic’s Lien — Validity—Excessive Claim.
A claimant under the mechanic’s lien law is not deprived of the benefit of the statute because he included in his statement of hen items for which he had no right to charge, where such action was the result of an honest mistake on his part, and not an effort to place a hen upon the premises for a greater amount than was honestly believed to be due. LamontY. LeFevre, 96 Mich. 177, followed. Grant, J., dissenting upon the apphcation of the rule to the facts of this case.
Appeal from Wayne; Carpenter, J.
Submitted December 4, 1895.
Decided December 31, 1895.
Bill by Ferdinand Scheibner against Frank Cohnen and wife to enforce a mechanic’s lien. From a decree for complainant, defendants appeal.
Affirmed.
Charles Flowers, for complainant.
Bowen, Douglas & Whiting, for defendants.
Rehearing denied July 8, 1896.

Opinion:
Long, J.
We agree with the court below that this case does not fall within the principle of Gibbs v. Hanchette, 90 Mich. 657. That case was distinguished in Lamont v. Le Fevre, 96 Mich. 175. In speaking of the Gibbs Case, it was there said:
"The case of Gibbs v. Hanchette carefully distinguishes between such cases and those where, through an honest mistake, too much has been claimed in the statement of lien, or, by reason of a failure of proof, the claimant was denied the entire amount claimed."
It is evident to us, from the claimant's testimony, that, in stating the amount of his claim, he was honestly mistaken. We see nothing in the record contradictory to his explanation of how it occurred. The court below, who heard the testimony, was of the opinion that it was an honest mistake, and not an effort on the part of the claimant to place a lien upon the premises for a greater amount than he honestly believed his due.
The case is governed by Lamont v. Le Fevre, supra, and the decree below must be affirmed, with costs to claimant.
McGrath, O. J., Montgomery and Hooker, JJ., concurred with Long, J.