have the right to contract or in whose behalf valid contracts may be made are subject to its provisions. The courts to the time of this writing have noted exceptions of public corporations and of railway companies for materials used in construction of the railway.* § 8. In General as to the Interest Reached. For the purposes of the lien law the term "owner, part owner or lessee" is construed to include all the interest, either 3. These are governed by §§ 10743-10745, C. L. 1897, superseded by Act 187 of 1905, C. L. 1915 (14827) - (14830), How. 2nd Ed. §§13839-13842. Contractors upon public buildings, works or improvements are required to furnish, and public officials are required to exact, bonds which will protect the public and the furnishers of materials and labor used in building, repairing or ornamenting such buildings, works or improvements. The right to lien against a county for the construction of a court house was denied in Knapp v. Swaney (56 Mich 345, 23 N. W. 162), and was also denied to subcontractors and materialmen as against the State Board of Education for labor and materials furnished for a public structure in Ford v. State Board of Education, 166 Mich. 658, 132 N. W. 467. See 27 Cyc. 25-27; Wilkinson on Mechanics' Liens, p. 32. Where a subcontractor, who provided work, labor and materials on a county building in Wisconsin, brought suit in that jurisdiction under Wisconsin statutes authorizing judgment against the county for the indebtedness due from the principal contractor, he obtained a lien on the funds due from the county to the contractor and was entitled to priority of payment over other creditors later commencing proceeding to enforce their liens. Rick man v. Rickman, 180 Mich. 224 (231-233, 248-249), 146 N. W. 609. Right to mechanics' liens upon public property. Notes 33 Am. & Eng. Ann. Cas. 102-106; 17. Id. 131-132; 26 Id. 762-764. Right to lien against charitable or religious institution exists. Note, 38 Am. & Eng. Ann. Cas. 11451146. 4. In Detroit Trust Co. v. Detroit, Flint & Saginaw Railway, 159 Mich. 442 (453), 124 N. W. 45, right to lien as against an electric railway for machinery for the power plant was denied, the court accepting the construction placed upon the Michigan statute by the United States Circuit Court of Appeals in Pennsylvania Steel Co. v. Potts Salt and Lumber Co., 63 Fed. 11 (13-15), where it was held the statute did not give a lien for steel rails furnished for a railroad. 27 Cyc. 26-27; Buncome County v. Tommey, 115 U. S. 122, 5 S. Ct. 626, 29 L. Ed. 305; Wilkinson on Mechanics' Liens, p. 30. See Prather Engineering Co. v. Detroit, Flint & Saginaw Ry. Co., 152 Mich. 582, 116 Ň. W. 376. Laborers and materialmen furnishing or performing for the constructing or repairing of railroads are protected by Act 100 of 1871, C. L. 1915 (8336-8338), How. 2nd Ed. §§6708-6710, C. L. 1897 (5243)-(5245), under which railroad companies are required to see that furnishers of legal or equitable which such person may have in the real estate upon which the improvements contemplated by the act are made, including the interest held by any person under contract of purchase, whether in writing or otherwise.5 Both the interest possessed at the time of commencement of work or furnishing of material for the improvement and all subsequently acquired interest of such owner, part owner or lessee are subject to the provisions of the law and to lien when properly claimed and perfected, but no lien can attach to anything beyond the actual interest in the property of the person contracting for the structure or improvement' in the absence of exceptional circumstances. materials, other than iron and equipment, and laborers are paid before paying contractors or subcontractors. Application of right to Mechanics' Liens to railroad property. Notes: 7 Am. & Eng. Ann. Cas. 269-272; 28 Id. 95-98. 5. § 29 of Act 179 of 1891, C. L. 1915, (14824), How. 2nd Ed. $13794, C. L. 1897, (10738); 27 Cyc. 29-30, 54-66. 6. §1 of Act 179 of 1891 as amended by Act 121 of 1909, C. L. 1915 (14796), How. 2nd Ed. §13766, C. L. 1897 (10710); Sheldon, Kamm & Co. v. Bremer, 166 Mich. 578, (579), 132 N. W. 117. 7. Wagar v. Briscoe, 38 Mich. 587, (594-596); Scales v. Griffin, 2 Doug. 54 (64, 65); Merrill v. Brant, 175 Mich. 182 (184-5), 141 N. W. 550, where it was held an owner's property cannot be subjected to lien and taken to satisfy an indebtedness incurred by his lessee under a contract to which he was not a party. The lien reaches only the actual interest in the property of the person contracting for the structure; and where the contract with a lessee is subject to the lessor's lien for indebtedness under his contract with the lessee, not recorded until after the performance of the work for which lien was claimed, such lien cannot cut off or have priority over the lien of the lessor; Peninsular Electric Co. v. Norris, 100 Mich. 496 (504-505), 59 N. W. 151. For reference to exceptional circumstances mentioned in the text, see §11, note 14. Any person having an interest in real property with capacity to contract may create a right to lien to the extent of his interest. The vendee under a land contract or a lessee may subject his interest to lien, and where the improvements are contemplated under contract of sale or lease may subject owner's interest to lien, though ordinarily the lien will only extend to the interest of the person contracting for the improvement or structure and to the structure itself where new. In Houck on the Law of Liens, §49, it is said: "The quantity of estate held by the owner does not seem to be material, for the lien can only attach to his interest, and to no more. What that interest is, it is the business of the builder or materialman to discover before work is begun or materials are furnished. The law makes it the duty of all persons, who contract, to ascertain the nature of the interest they acquire. This rule imposes no greater hardship or in § 9. Extent of Description Affected by Right to Lien. The lien attaches not only to the structure and its appurtenances but as well to the entire interest, legal or equitable, presently owned or subsequently acquired, of the person contracting for the structure or improvement in the appurtenant real estate, the statute provision being that the contractor, furnisher or performer shall be entitled to lien upon such house, building, machinery, wharf, walk or walks, and other structure, and its appurtenances, and also upon the entire interest of such owner, part owner or lessee in and to the lot or piece of land, not exceeding one quarter section of land, or if in any incorporated city or village, not exceeding the lot or lots upon or around or in front of which such improvement is made, to the extent of the right, title and interest of such owner, part owner or lessee at the time work was commenced or materials were begun to be furnished by the contractor under the original contract, or by the subcontractor who furnishes, or is furnished with any labor or material in the performance or execution of such sub-contract, and also to the extent of any subsequently acquired interest of any such owner, part owner or lessee, and in case of the construction of a number of buildings or walks under one contract upon, around or in front of, the same lot or contiguous lots for the same owner, part owner or lessee, of any interest in the real estate upon which said buildings are situated or upon, around or in front of which said walk or walks are built or repaired; and that such lien convenience on mechanics than on other individuals." As to a vendee's interest, see: Jones on Liens, 3rd Ed. §§12471250, 1252, 1257, 1258; Rockel on Mechanics' Liens, §143; Boisot on Mechanics' Liens, §§300-311; Phillips on Mechanics' Liens, 3rd Ed. $869-73; Houck Law of Liens, $849-55, 77; Overton on Liens, 88535-537, 544; Kneeland on Mechanics' Liens, 2nd Ed. §§17-19. As to a Lessee's interest: See Jones on Liens, 3rd Ed. §§1245, 1272-1282; Rockel on Mechanics' Liens, §§141, 143; Boisot on Mechanics' Liens, §§130-134, 289-299; Phillips on Mechanics' Liens, 3rd Ed. §§83-93; Houck Law of Liens, §§83-84; Kneeland on Mechanics' Liens, 2nd Ed. §§39-43; Overton on Liens, §557. See Notes, 3 Am. & Eng. Ann. Cas. 1096-1098; 14 Id. 1031; 22 Id. 316-317; 23 L. R. A. (N. S.) 601-618; 62 L. R. A. 380. 8. Sheldon, Kamm & Co. v. Bremer, 166 Mich. 578 (579), 132 N. W. 117; 27 Cyc, 227-229. for such material or labor so furnished, shall attach to all of said buildings, walk or walks, together with the land upon, around or in front of which the same are being constructed, the same as provided in case of a single building, walk or improvement. It is the general rule that the lien attaches to the extent of the statutory limit.10 9 9. §1 of Act 179 of 1891 as amended by Act 199 of 1893, Act 143 of 1897, Act 17 of 1903 and Act 121 of 1909; C. L. 1915 (14796), How. 2nd Ed. §13766, C. L. 1897 (10710). It may be a question of fact whether the lien shall attach to all or a part only of the land within the maximum quantity fixed by law. It would not necessarily follow, because a structure had been erected upon some part of a farm of 160 acres, that the lien extended to 160 acres. And it does not necessarily follow because a block in a city is divided into lots, that a lien may not attach to more of those lots than are covered, or partly covered, by the structure erected. A factory building, though built upon and covering only two platted lots in a city block, may be said to be built upon contiguous territory in the block necessary to the convenient enjoyment and use of the buildings. Assuming an entire block to have been selected as a proper site for, and devoted to the use of, a factory and its material and products, it would be a narrow construction of this statute which would, in all cases, limit the lien to the particular lots upon which a particular building stood. Adams v. Central City Granite, etc., Co., 154 Mich. 448 (455), 117 N. W. 932. In this case a company had purchased a large number of city lots extending over or into several blocks and had erected a brick factory on a few of the lots, to utilize the deposit found upon the balance of the property. It was held that the lien extended only to the building and to the lots upon which it was located. Where the building for which material was furnished was a hotel on one lot, with a wing used for a barber shop on another lot and the proof showed that the timber furnished was used in both which were being erected together, it was held that they should be treated as one parcel and that the lien attached to both. Lamont v. LeFevre, 96 Mich. 175 (178), 55 N. W. 687. Where a claimant seeks to reach more than the statutory quantity of land, he should advance reasons and facts in support of his demands. Adams v. Central City Granite, etc. Co., 154 Mich. 448 (456), 117 N. W. 932. Generally as to lands covered or subjected to lien, see 27 Cyc. 221226. As to several houses on different lots constructed under single arrangement, see Wilkinson on Mechanics' Liens, pp. 19-20. Mechanics' liens in cases of separate or non-contiguous lots or buildings; in cases where there are separate buildings under single contract; in cases of work under different contracts and in cases of buildings on lots belonging to different owners; see 2 Am. & Eng. Ann. Cas. 685-687; 1 L. R. A. 514; 17 Id. 314; Boisot on Mechanics' Liens, §§170-175; Phillips on Me'chanics' Liens, 3rd Ed. §§324, 369377; Kneeland on Mechanics' Liens, 2nd Ed. §§100-105. Right to joint or several lien on building or buildings created or improved under entire contract on lots owned in severalty. See Notes, 24 Am. & Eng. Ann. Cas. 873-877; 30 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1219. 10. Adams v. Central City Gran § 10. Effect of Disposal of Interest. It is clear that the disposal of his interest by an owner, part owner or lessee who has made a contract for construction upon or improvement of premises in which he holds an interest, after the contractor or any subcontractor or material man or laborer has begun to furnish or perform under the contract, will not operate to bar the liens of those furnishing or performing at or previous to the time of such disposal." However, it is probable that if the owner, part owner, or lessee, after making contract but before any service or furnishing of labor or material is done thereunder, sells to a bona fide purchaser for value, a lien would not attach to the land.12 It may, however, be safely stated that if the purchaser knew of the contract and encouraged the ite, etc. Co., 154 Mich. 448 (455), 117 N. W. 932. Upon property or interest subject to lien and the quantity of land reached, see: Jones on Liens, 3rd Ed. §§13681388; Rockel on Mechanics' Liens, §§10-11, 85 132-140; Boisot on Mechanics' Liens, §§124-160, 161178; Phillips on Mechanics' Liens, 3rd Ed. §§186-203; Houck Law of Liens, §§173-179; Kneeland on Mechanics' Liens, 2nd Ed. §§96110a; Overton on Liens, §§554, 558, 559. 11. 27 Cyc. 287-290. See Chapter XI, §§83-84, to effect that right to lien attaches as of date of commencement of structure or furnishing regardless of time of particular furnishing. See, however, Sheldon-Kamm & Co. v. Bremer, 166 Mich. 578-579, 132 N. W. 117, where the dictum apparently states that the date of the particular furnishing governs. If this dictum correctly states the law it inferentially overrules KerrMurray Manufacturing Co. v. Kalamazoo Heat, Light & Power Co., 124 Mich. 111 (114), 82 N. W. 801 and Kay v. Towsley, 113 Mich. 281, 71 N. W. 490. 12. See: Sheldon, Kamm & Co. v. Bremer, 166 Mich. 578 (585), 132 N. W. 117; where three judges concur in the statement that the transfer of the title to a bona fide purchaser before performance of a contract will probably preclude a lien, which has not already attached, by reason of the furnishing of some of the labor or material under the contract, and to the extent that it shall be so furnished after the transfer, if done in ignorance of such transfer. The majority opinion in this case held: where a husband entered into a contract for the construction of a house upon land owned at the time by his wife, and shortly thereafter conveyed to both of them by the entireties, before any labor was performed or material furnished therefor, a lien would not attach for material furnished later, in the absence of the wife's signature to the contract. (Section 3 (C. L. 1915, $14798) of the act did not apply because the husband contracting had some title to the land at the time the material was furnished; the case is ruled by section 2, C. L. 1915, (14797) of the act). |