Lindsay v. Huth

Michigan Supreme Court

Lindsay v. Huth

42 N.W. 358, 74 Mich. 712, 1889 Mich. LEXIS 700

CourtMichigan Supreme Court

DecidedApril 24, 1889

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 42 N.W. 358 (Lindsay v. Huth) 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

Lindsay v. Huth, 42 N.W. 358, 74 Mich. 712, 1889 Mich. LEXIS 700 (Mich. 1889).

Pincite

Opinion

Campbell, J.

Plaintiffs brought proceedings under the statute of 188^ to establish a lien on certain property for the value of lumber claimed to have been sold to [713]*713Nnickrhem and put into a building on tne premises. The case presents a number of serious errors, but, as there is a fatal defect underlying the whole action, we meed refer to no more.

The notice of lien filed with the register has no verification of any kind. The statute positively requires the notice to be verified, amd it cannot be held directory.¹ When a person can create a cloud on title by ex parte action, he must at least comply with every statutory condition, and the verification was designed to secure good faith in the attempt to set up a lien, and to prevent such notices from being filed without being protected against malicious and uhfounded assertion. Such a lien, when once filed, must have the effect of preventing the property from sale or other use until the validity of it is determined, and it might be made a means of serious mischief, unless carefully guarded. As there was no valid notice of lien filed, there was nothing to authorize this action.

The judgment must be reversed, with costs of both courts, as there is no basis for a new trial

Champlin and Morse, JJ., concurred.

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

Campbell, J.

Plaintiffs brought proceedings under the statute of 188^ to establish a lien on certain property for the value of lumber claimed to have been sold to [713]*713Nnickrhem and put into a building on tne premises. The case presents a number of serious errors, but, as there is a fatal defect underlying the whole action, we meed refer to no more.

The notice of lien filed with the register has no verification of any kind. The statute positively requires the notice to be verified, amd it cannot be held directory.¹ When a person can create a cloud on title by ex parte action, he must at least comply with every statutory condition, and the verification was designed to secure good faith in the attempt to set up a lien, and to prevent such notices from being filed without being protected against malicious and uhfounded assertion. Such a lien, when once filed, must have the effect of preventing the property from sale or other use until the validity of it is determined, and it might be made a means of serious mischief, unless carefully guarded. As there was no valid notice of lien filed, there was nothing to authorize this action.

The judgment must be reversed, with costs of both courts, as there is no basis for a new trial

Champlin and Morse, JJ., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

42 N.W. 358, 74 Mich. 712, 1889 Mich. LEXIS 700, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lindsay-v-huth-mich-1889.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack