Case Name: WOOD v. BOLINGER
Court: Michigan Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Michigan
Decision Date: 1930-12-02
Citations: 252 Mich. 489
Docket Number: Docket No. 179, Calendar No. 35,036
Parties: WOOD v. BOLINGER.
Judges: Wiest, C. J., and Butzel, Clark, McDonald, Sharpe, and Fead, JJ., concurred. North, J., did not sit.
Reporter: Michigan Reports
Volume: 252
Pages: 489–491

Head Matter:
WOOD v. BOLINGER.
Mechanics ' Liens — Statutes.
Suit by contractor to foreclose mechanic's lieu was properly dismissed where he failed to give owners statement under oath of number and names of subcontractors and laborers, with amount due or to beeome due to them, as required by 3 .Comp. Laws 1915, § 14799; there being no lien to foreclose.
Appeal from Calhoun; Hatch (Blaine W.), J.
Submitted October 30, 1930.
(Docket No. 179, Calendar No. 35,036.)
Decided December 2, 1930.
Bill by Leo E. Wood and Frank G. Woodruff, co-partners doing business under the firm name of Wood & Woodruff, against Ethel M. Bolinger and others to establish and foreclose a mechanic’s lien. Intervener’s cross-bill by Cory, Mann, George Corporation, a New York corporation, to establish a lien. Cross-bill by George W. Rolfe and another to establish a lien. From a decree dismissing the bill and granting a first lien to defendants Rolfe, plaintiffs appeal.
Affirmed.
Joseph W. McAuliffe, for plaintiffs.
Mechem <& Mechem, for defendant Cory, Mann, George Corporation.
Hamilton & Cleary, for defendants Rolfe.

Opinion:
Potter, J.
This case involves a bill filed to establish and foreclose a mechanic's lien. Some of defendants filed answers in the nature of a cross-bill to determine their rights under other liens. Plaintiffs as contractors built a house for defendants Bolinger. They filed a claim of lien. Plaintiffs did not make out and give to defendants a statement under oath of the number and names of subcontractors and laborers, giving the amount due or to become due to them as required by section 14799, 3 Comp. Laws 1915, which provides:
"Until the statement provided for in this section is made, in manner and form as herein provided, the contractor shall have no right of action or lien against the owner, part owner or lessee," etc.
It follows that plaintiffs had no lien to foreclose. The trial court dismissed plaintiffs' bill of complaint. The decree of the trial court is affirmed, with costs.
Wiest, C. J., and Butzel, Clark, McDonald, Sharpe, and Fead, JJ., concurred. North, J., did not sit.