From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Bezold v. Beach Development Co.

Supreme Court of Michigan
Sep 16, 1932
259 Mich. 693 (Mich. 1932)

Summary

In Bezold, where plaintiff had furnished cinders partly for the construction of buildings and partly for "certain roadways and parking grounds" in a privately owned amusement facility, the Supreme Court refused to sustain a lower court order granting plaintiff a lien.

Summary of this case from William Moors, Inc v. Pine Lake #2

Opinion

Docket No. 32, Calendar No. 36,478.

Submitted June 8, 1932.

Decided September 16, 1932.

Appeal from Macomb; Spier (James E.), J. Submitted June 8, 1932. (Docket No. 32, Calendar No. 36,478.) Decided September 16, 1932.

Separate bills by Fred Bezold, Multiplex Builders Supply Company, a Michigan corporation, and Detroit White Lead Color Works, a Michigan corporation, against Beach Development Company, a Michigan corporation, and others to foreclose mechanics' liens. Cases consolidated for trial. Decree for plaintiffs. Defendants Beach Development Company and Standard Accident Insurance Company appeal. Reversed.

Bert V. Nunneley, Douglas W. Ball, and John H. Nunneley, for plaintiff Bezold.

Rosenbusch Retzlaff, for plaintiffs Multiplex Builders Supply Company and Detroit White Lead Color Works.

Younglove Chockley, for defendants Beach Development Company and Standard Accident Insurance Company.


Plaintiffs had decrees of foreclosure of mechanics' liens for materials furnished the Jefferson Beach Amusement Company, vendee under land contract, which was adjudged bankrupt and its interest in the premises sold to defendant Beach Development Company, which later acquired vendors' title.

Fred Bezold. — Claimant filed statement of lien for furnishing "labor and materials in and for the construction of certain roadways and parking grounds," etc. He furnished cinders. At the hearing, he claimed part of them were used in the construction of buildings and he had decree for such part.

The statute, 3 Comp. Laws 1929, § 13101, permits liens for labor and materials used in "any house, building, machinery, wharf or structure, * * * foundation, cellar or basement" for such structure, or "sidewalks or wells." This designation would not include general improvements, roadways or parking grounds.

"Where a claim includes both lienable and nonlienable items, and by reason of the method of stating them the nonlienable items cannot be segregated from the general aggregate, the entire lien must fail." 18 R. C. L. p. 942.

See, also, 40 C. J. p. 247.

Claimant's statement of lien goes even further than the rule in that it affirmatively shows that all the cinders he furnished were for nonlienable purposes, and he had no lien.

Decree is reversed, with costs.

Multiplex Builders Supply Company. — Claimant filed statement of lien for "labor and material in and for the erection and construction of a certain house and buildings, etc., and amusement park." It furnished sewer pipe and cement which went into buildings, gravel used partly for buildings and partly for roads, and drain tile to drain the land. It could not estimate the amount of gravel used in buildings. Construction of roads and draining the land were nonlienable purposes.

The statement of lien included both lienable and nonlienable items without means of separation and was void under the above authorities. See, also, J.E. Greilick Co. v. Taylor, 143 Mich. 704.

Decree is reversed, with costs.

Detroit White Lead Color Works. — The proof of service of statement of lien recited that an officer "personally served a true copy of the attached lien upon the Jefferson Beach Amusement Company by handing a copy of said lien to Arthur Oehmig;" that he personally served Theodore Halsig and Agnes Halsig, William F. Baecker, and that he served Max R. Mueller, Marie A. Mueller, and William T. Burridge by posting on the premises.

The lien claimant has the burden of proof of compliance with the statutory requirements to establish a lien. R. C. Mahon Co. v. Ford Motor Co., 256 Mich. 255; Roberts v. Miller, 32 Mich. 289.

Oehmig, Halsig, Baecker, and Mueller were vendor owners of the premises. Neither in the pleadings or proofs was it alleged or shown that Oehmig was an officer or agent of the Jefferson Beach Amusement Company, upon whom service could be made. Plaintiff did not sustain the burden of proof of valid service necessary to establish a lien. Wiltsie v. Harvey, 114 Mich. 131; Zilz v. Wilcox, 190 Mich. 486.

Decree is reversed, with costs.

CLARK, C.J., and McDONALD, POTTER, SHARPE, NORTH, WIEST, and BUTZEL, JJ., concurred.


Summaries of

Bezold v. Beach Development Co.

Supreme Court of Michigan
Sep 16, 1932
259 Mich. 693 (Mich. 1932)

In Bezold, where plaintiff had furnished cinders partly for the construction of buildings and partly for "certain roadways and parking grounds" in a privately owned amusement facility, the Supreme Court refused to sustain a lower court order granting plaintiff a lien.

Summary of this case from William Moors, Inc v. Pine Lake #2
Case details for

Bezold v. Beach Development Co.

Case Details

Full title:BEZOLD v. BEACH DEVELOPMENT CO. MULTIPLEX BUILDERS SUPPLY CO. v. SAME…

Court:Supreme Court of Michigan

Date published: Sep 16, 1932

Citations

259 Mich. 693 (Mich. 1932)
244 N.W. 204

Citing Cases

Spartan Asphalt Paving Co. v. Grand Ledge Mobile Home Park

We reserve for future cases the question which will arise when a minor deviation actually prejudices a…

William Moors, Inc v. Pine Lake #2

One of the principal decisions we must make in this matter is whether a ruling of the Michigan Supreme Court…