TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

DeGraaf, Vrieling & Co. v. Mulick

DeGraaf, Vrieling & Company (a corporation) v. Adeline L. Mulick, James M. Travis, and Amelia P. Ives

DeGraaf, Vrieling & Co. v. Mulick, 48 N.W. 1096 (Mich. 1891)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Michigan Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
June 5, 1891
Judges
McGrath, Other
Citations
48 N.W. 109686 Mich. 2341891 Mich. LEXIS 911
Disposition
Decree affirmed.
Headnotes
Mechanic’s lien — Appeal. The bill in this case was filed to enforce a mechanic’s lien, and the questions raised are questions of fact, and the conclusions of the circuit judge are not disturbed.
Summary
Appeal from Kent. (Grove, J.) Bill to enforce a mechanic’s lien. Defendant Travis appeals. The facts are stated in the opinion.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — McGrath

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

McGrath, J.

The bill in this case was filed to enforce a mechanic’s lien for materials furnished by complainant, a corporation, in the construction of a building on lot 2, Dolbee’s addition to the city of Grand Bapids.

Defendant Adeline L. Mulick was the owner of the lot when the building was constructed. 4 Amelia P. Ives is the mortgagee, and James M. Travis, who appeals, is the grantee, of defendant Mulick.

The court below found that the contract for the materials was entered into with defendant Mulick, through her husband, William W. Mulick, who was, her general-agent, thereunto authorized. The defense -was that the building was constructed by William W. Mulick under a contract with his wife, Adeline L. Mulick; but the court found that no contract for the construction of said building was ever in good faith entered into between the said William W. Mulick and his. wife. The court further found that defendant Travis was a purchaser with notice; that the defendant Ives had a prior lien; and ordered a sale of the premises subject to the Ives mortgage to satisfy complainant’s lien.

The questions raised are questiohs of fact, and, after a careful examination of the record, we find no reason to disturb the conclusions arrived at by the trial judge.

The decree is affirmed, with costs to complainant, and the record remanded for further proceedings.

The other Justices concurred.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 0 cases

No case in this database cites this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list