Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 440.7307 (2026)

Carrier's lien.

✓ current as of July 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MI-LEGlegislature.mi.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE

Act 174 of 1962

440.7307 Carrier's lien.

Sec. 7307.

(1) A carrier has a lien on the goods covered by a bill of lading or on the proceeds of those goods in its possession for charges after the date of the carrier's receipt of the goods for storage or transportation, including demurrage and terminal charges, and for expenses necessary for preservation of the goods incident to their transportation or reasonably incurred in their sale pursuant to law. However, against a purchaser for value of a negotiable bill of lading, a carrier's lien is limited to charges stated in the bill or the applicable tariffs or, if no charges are stated, a reasonable charge.

(2) A lien for charges and expenses under subsection (1) on goods that the carrier was required by law to receive for transportation is effective against the consignor or any person entitled to the goods unless the carrier had notice that the consignor lacked authority to subject the goods to those charges and expenses. Any other lien under subsection (1) is effective against the consignor and any person that permitted the bailor to have control or possession of the goods unless the carrier had notice that the bailor lacked authority.

(3) A carrier loses its lien on any goods that it voluntarily delivers or unjustifiably refuses to deliver.

History: 1962, Act 174, Eff. Jan. 1, 1964 ;-- Am. 2012, Act 87, Eff. July 1, 2013

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 1 case, 2001–2001 · leading case: Progressive Timberlands, Inc v. R & R Heavy Haulers, Inc, 622 N.W.2d 533 (Mich. Ct. App. 2001).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Progressive Timberlands, Inc v. R & R Heavy Haulers, Inc, 622 N.W.2d 533 (Mich. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 9× “As previously noted, plaintiff alleged below, through sworn affidavits, that at the time of their initial refusal to deliver the saw, defendants did not indicate that they were asserting a statutory lien for the $195 due on the most recent transport of the saw, but rather…”

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 440.7307(1) — 1 case

Progressive Timberlands, Inc v. R & R Heavy Haulers, Inc, 622 N.W.2d 533 (Mich. Ct. App. 2001). “As previously noted, plaintiff alleged below, through sworn affidavits, that at the time of their initial refusal to deliver the saw, defendants did not indicate that they were asserting a statutory lien for the $195 due on the most recent transport of the saw, but rather…”

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 440.7307(3) — 1 case

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.