98 Mich. 168 | Mich. | 1893
This action was brought in 'justice’s court, under Act No. 229, Laws of 1887, to enforce a lien for work and labor in loading and skidding a lot of pine and hemlock logs.
a — Defendant made no objection for this reason in the justice’s court. Pistorius v. Swarthout, 67 Mich. 186; Peterson v. Fowler, 76 Id, 258.
“About 200,000 feet of pine and hemlock lumber, and also about 300 cords of slabs.”
This was clearly insufficient, under the authority of Stevens v. Osman, 1 Mich. 92.
In Farwell v. Fox, 18 Mich. 169, the Court held that the rule in Stevens v. Osman was needlessly stringent.
In Sexton v. McDowd, 38 Mich. 148, it was held that the description in a writ of replevin is sufficient, if, with outside help> the officer executing it can identify the property. The doctrine in Farwell v. Fox and Sexton v. McDowd was approved in Pingree v. Steere, 68 Mich. 204.
In Paterson, v. Parsell, 38 Mich. 607, the writ was held void for failure to describe the property. The writ in that case contained no description, but the affidavit annexed thereto did. The affidavit in that case required by the statute is not required to describe the property, but is to refer to the writ for a description. Motion was made to amend the writ, but the court held there was nothing to amend, and quashed the proceedings.
The strict rule laid down in Stevens v. Osman is practically overruled by the subsequent decisions above cited. We see no reason for 'applying a more stringent rule in attachment cases brought under the log-lien act than in
Judgment reversed, and neAV trial ordered.
The property was described as “ a quantity of com, consisting-of about 100 bushels, and a quantity of rye, consisting of about 200 bushels.”