Frohlich v. Ashton

Michigan Supreme Court

Frohlich v. Ashton

129 N.W. 18, 164 Mich. 132, 1910 Mich. LEXIS 958

CourtMichigan Supreme Court

DecidedDecember 30, 1910

DocketDocket No. 91

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 129 N.W. 18 (Frohlich v. Ashton) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Michigan Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Frohlich v. Ashton, 129 N.W. 18, 164 Mich. 132, 1910 Mich. LEXIS 958 (Mich. 1910).

Pincite

Opinion

Brooke, J.

This case is reported in 159 Mich. 965 (193 N. W. 1130), to which reference is made for the facts.

Two questions require consideration.

(1) Is the Michigan Lumber Yard estopped from participation in the fund until the other lienors have been paid ?

(9) What is the proper method of computing the cost of the building ?

While in terms the opinion filed does not dispose of the first question, it is evident that the court considered the matter and intended to affirm the action of the court below in this regard. In any event, we are now of opinion that the circuit court was correct in holding that the Michigan Lumber Yard was estopped, for the reason that it [134]*134had guaranteed the performance of the contract, and had directed payments to be made to the principal contractors. Fairbairn v. Moody, 116 Mich. 61 (74 N. W. 386, 75 N. W. 469); Wilkinson on Mechanics’ Liens, p. 100.

In our former opinion, we held that in computing the percentage to which each of the lienors was entitled there should be included, not only the sums actually paid by the owner and the enforceable liens, but also the amount of bills for labor and material which had gone into the structure, for which no liens had been filed, or, if filed, had been abandoned. As authority for this view, we cited and quoted from Godfrey Lumber Co. v. Cole, 151 Mich. 280 (114 N. W. 1018). A re-examination of the question convincés us that the case cited does not support this view.

It is a matter of no consequence to either the owner or the lienors, if some of the subcontractors who have furnished labor or material for the building choose to rely for payment upon the principal contractor. If they take advantage of the provisions of the statute and file and prosecute liens, their claims must be considered. If not, and the owner has neither paid nor is liable to pay their claims, they should be disregarded.

It follows that the decree of the circuit court should have been, and it now is, affirmed, with costs.

Bird, C. J., and Ostrander, Hooker, McAlvay, Blair, and Stone, JJ., concurred with Brooke, J.

Moore, J.

I am content with the rule as stated in the opinion in the case as reported in 159 Mich. 265 (123 N. W. 1130).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Brooke, J.

This case is reported in 159 Mich. 965 (193 N. W. 1130), to which reference is made for the facts.

Two questions require consideration.

(1) Is the Michigan Lumber Yard estopped from participation in the fund until the other lienors have been paid ?

(9) What is the proper method of computing the cost of the building ?

While in terms the opinion filed does not dispose of the first question, it is evident that the court considered the matter and intended to affirm the action of the court below in this regard. In any event, we are now of opinion that the circuit court was correct in holding that the Michigan Lumber Yard was estopped, for the reason that it [134]*134had guaranteed the performance of the contract, and had directed payments to be made to the principal contractors. Fairbairn v. Moody, 116 Mich. 61 (74 N. W. 386, 75 N. W. 469); Wilkinson on Mechanics’ Liens, p. 100.

In our former opinion, we held that in computing the percentage to which each of the lienors was entitled there should be included, not only the sums actually paid by the owner and the enforceable liens, but also the amount of bills for labor and material which had gone into the structure, for which no liens had been filed, or, if filed, had been abandoned. As authority for this view, we cited and quoted from Godfrey Lumber Co. v. Cole, 151 Mich. 280 (114 N. W. 1018). A re-examination of the question convincés us that the case cited does not support this view.

It is a matter of no consequence to either the owner or the lienors, if some of the subcontractors who have furnished labor or material for the building choose to rely for payment upon the principal contractor. If they take advantage of the provisions of the statute and file and prosecute liens, their claims must be considered. If not, and the owner has neither paid nor is liable to pay their claims, they should be disregarded.

It follows that the decree of the circuit court should have been, and it now is, affirmed, with costs.

Bird, C. J., and Ostrander, Hooker, McAlvay, Blair, and Stone, JJ., concurred with Brooke, J.

Moore, J.

I am content with the rule as stated in the opinion in the case as reported in 159 Mich. 265 (123 N. W. 1130).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

129 N.W. 18, 164 Mich. 132, 1910 Mich. LEXIS 958, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/frohlich-v-ashton-mich-1910.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack