Hibbard v. Finch

Michigan Supreme Court

Hibbard v. Finch

247 N.W. 731, 262 Mich. 506, 1933 Mich. LEXIS 911

CourtMichigan Supreme Court

DecidedApril 4, 1933

DocketDocket No. 126, Calendar No. 37,027.

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 247 N.W. 731 (Hibbard v. Finch) 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

Hibbard v. Finch, 247 N.W. 731, 262 Mich. 506, 1933 Mich. LEXIS 911 (Mich. 1933).

Pincite

Opinion

Clark, J.

Tbe bill prays foreclosure of a mecbanic’s lien and accounting. Tbe defendants are tbe owner and ber mortgagee. Tbe trial judge found no valid lien, and decree was entered accordingly. Tbe accounting feature of tbe bill was retained, and a certain sum found to be due plaintiff, principal contractor, from tbe owner, Margaret B. Fincb, wbieb was decreed to be paid. Defendant offered no testimony, tbe case being disposed of on motion at conclusion of plaintiff’s proof, and be bas appealed.

Plaintiff began erecting tbe dwelling bouse on or about June 1,1927. Mrs. Fincb moved into tbe bouse tbe following November. Sbe claims an agreement to build and complete tbe bouse for $8,500'. During tbe summer of 1927 plaintiff gave bér a writing stating that be agreed to build at a fixed profit of $700, estimated cost to include profit, $8,500. A small amount of repair work was done in fall of 1929. On January 2, 1930, plaintiff put some counter-flashing *508 on the roof, total cost $1.75, $1 of which was for labor, which plaintiff, although otherwise indebted to his employee, was careful to pay him that day and by check. Within the statutory period of 60 days thereafter, plaintiff filed statement of lien, claiming $4,069.29. The trial judge was of the opinion that the furnishing of January 2, 1930, was not in good faith, not within the contract, but to gain ground for filing a statement of lien. Upon a review of the evidence, as stated, together with character of the work done and material furnished on January 2, 1930, the significant payment of the labor item, the lapse of time after the building was accepted by the owner, we are in accord with the conclusion of the trial judge that the statement of lien was not filed in time. 3 Comp. Laws 1929, § 13105.

Both sides request, as in the trial court, that the accounting feature be retained and accounting made. No question of jurisdiction; no question of joining accounting with statutory foreclosure of mechanic’s lien, is presented. We are not required to raise the points. Cummings v. Schreur, 236 Mich. 628.

The writing given by plaintiff as stated .does not fix a full contract price. It states rather an estimated price. We cannot find on this record a contract for a fixed price, nor should accounting be had on this incomplete record. The cause should be remanded that full accounting of the matter may be had.

Decree dismissing foreclosure bill is affirmed, and as to accounting reversed, and remanded, without costs.

McDonald, C. J., and Potter, Sharpe, North, Pead, Wiest, and Butzel, JJ., concurred.

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

Clark, J.

Tbe bill prays foreclosure of a mecbanic’s lien and accounting. Tbe defendants are tbe owner and ber mortgagee. Tbe trial judge found no valid lien, and decree was entered accordingly. Tbe accounting feature of tbe bill was retained, and a certain sum found to be due plaintiff, principal contractor, from tbe owner, Margaret B. Fincb, wbieb was decreed to be paid. Defendant offered no testimony, tbe case being disposed of on motion at conclusion of plaintiff’s proof, and be bas appealed.

Plaintiff began erecting tbe dwelling bouse on or about June 1,1927. Mrs. Fincb moved into tbe bouse tbe following November. Sbe claims an agreement to build and complete tbe bouse for $8,500'. During tbe summer of 1927 plaintiff gave bér a writing stating that be agreed to build at a fixed profit of $700, estimated cost to include profit, $8,500. A small amount of repair work was done in fall of 1929. On January 2, 1930, plaintiff put some counter-flashing *508 on the roof, total cost $1.75, $1 of which was for labor, which plaintiff, although otherwise indebted to his employee, was careful to pay him that day and by check. Within the statutory period of 60 days thereafter, plaintiff filed statement of lien, claiming $4,069.29. The trial judge was of the opinion that the furnishing of January 2, 1930, was not in good faith, not within the contract, but to gain ground for filing a statement of lien. Upon a review of the evidence, as stated, together with character of the work done and material furnished on January 2, 1930, the significant payment of the labor item, the lapse of time after the building was accepted by the owner, we are in accord with the conclusion of the trial judge that the statement of lien was not filed in time. 3 Comp. Laws 1929, § 13105.

Both sides request, as in the trial court, that the accounting feature be retained and accounting made. No question of jurisdiction; no question of joining accounting with statutory foreclosure of mechanic’s lien, is presented. We are not required to raise the points. Cummings v. Schreur, 236 Mich. 628.

The writing given by plaintiff as stated .does not fix a full contract price. It states rather an estimated price. We cannot find on this record a contract for a fixed price, nor should accounting be had on this incomplete record. The cause should be remanded that full accounting of the matter may be had.

Decree dismissing foreclosure bill is affirmed, and as to accounting reversed, and remanded, without costs.

McDonald, C. J., and Potter, Sharpe, North, Pead, Wiest, and Butzel, JJ., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

247 N.W. 731, 262 Mich. 506, 1933 Mich. LEXIS 911, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hibbard-v-finch-mich-1933.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack