{ "id": 1551724, "name": "Carr v. Hahn & Carter", "name_abbreviation": "Carr v. Hahn & Carter", "decision_date": "1917-01-01", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "609", "last_page": "611", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "126 Ark. 609" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ark.", "id": 8808, "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 34, "name_long": "Arkansas", "name": "Ark." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "30 Ark. 574", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1881176 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/30/0574-01" ] }, { "cite": "9 Mich. 154", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Mich.", "case_ids": [ 1922329 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/mich/9/0154-01" ] }, { "cite": "77 Ark. 416", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "119 Ark. 43", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 8717660 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/119/0043-01" ] }, { "cite": "30 Ark. 568", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1881136 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/30/0568-01" ] }, { "cite": "115 Ark. 230", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1533805 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/115/0230-01" ] }, { "cite": "56 Ark. 516", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "30 Ark. 568", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1881136 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/30/0568-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 298, "char_count": 4986, "ocr_confidence": 0.482, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.6525811244207297e-07, "percentile": 0.6930029511373057 }, "sha256": "0ca8bf50ff472e54012970ca8f1ca58d194dc482cc9c57b8e863475fab354b4b", "simhash": "1:a0c864da0b1a2f4d", "word_count": 842 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T14:43:49.050580+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "Carr v. Hahn & Carter." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Humphreys, J.\nAppellant brought this suit in the Lincoln Chancery Court against appellees, seeking to enforce a materialman\u2019s lien for materials furnished in the construction of a certain boat in the possession of appellees in Lincoln county, at the time his suit was instituted. One of the appellees waived service in Pulaski county. The other appellee, E. J. Hahn, was served with process in Pulaski county. Appellee, E. J. Hahn appeared specially and filed the following motion to quash service: \u201cComes E. J. Hahn, by Jn,o. F. Clifford, his attorney, and appearifig for this purpose only, moves the court to quash service of summons upon him, and as a'reason therefor states that service upon both of the defendants hals been hhd outside the confines of Lincoln county.\u201d\nThe complaint alleged that the materials were furnished and delivered on August 28,1914, in pursuance of a contract made on the 30th day of March, 1914. This suit was instituted on the 28th day of October, 1914, and the summons was served on the 12th day of November, 1914. Many other pleadings were filed and proceedings had in the ease, but it is unnecessary to refer to them, as the facts already stated are sufficient upon which to decide the controlling issue in the case. The court quashed the service and dismissed the bill; appellant excepted and the cause is here on appeal.\nThe controlling issue in the case is whether the chancery court had jurisdiction and whether, having jurisdiction, personal service outside of Lincoln county, where the suit was instituted, was sufficient. Our court has held that the chancery courts of this State have concurrent jurisdiction with the circuit courts in the enforcement of our mechanics\u2019 lien law. Murray v. Rapley, 30 Ark. 568; Kizer Lbr. Co. v. Mosely, 56 Ark. 516; Martin v. Blytheville Water Co., 115 Ark. 230.\nIt is provided in the mechanics\u2019 lien law, section 4987, Kirby\u2019s Digest, that a party instituting his suit to enforce such liens, where the defendant is out of the county, may obtain service by issuing and publishing a warning order as in proceedings under attachment. Section 6059, Kirby\u2019s Digest, provides that \u201cThe plaintiff may, at any time before judgment, have a summons served on the defendant, if found in this State, although a warning order may have been previously entered against him, and after such service the ease shall proceed as in other cases of actual service. It is provided in section 4983, of Kirby\u2019s Digest, that the mechanic\u2019s lien law shall be enforced against the property in the county where the property is situated. This is clearly a proceeding in rem. When the statutes are all construed together, it is very clear that personal service on the defendant anywhere in the State is sufficient if the suit is instituted in the county where the property is located.\nThe learned chancellor quashed the service and dismissed this bill on the theory that personal service could not be had if all the defendants resided in another county than the county in which the suit was instituted. This was error and the decree quashing service and dismissing the bill is reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings.", "type": "majority", "author": "Humphreys, J." } ], "attorneys": [ "James A. Comer and Powell Clayton, for appellant.", "John F. Clifford, for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "Carr v. Hahn & Carter.\nOpinion delivered January 1, 1917.\n1. Mechanics' liens \u2014 chancery jurisdiction. \u2014 Chancery courts have concurrent jurisdiction with the circuit courts in the enforcement of the mechanics\u2019 lien laws of the State.\n2. Mechanics\u2019 liens \u2014 service on dependant outside county in which action is brought. \u2014 Under the statutes of this State personal service on the defendant, in an action to enforce a mechanic\u2019s lien, had anywhere in the State, is sufficient, if the suit is instituted in the county where the property is located.\nAppeal from Lincoln Chancery Court; John M. Elliott, Chancellor;\nreversed.\nJames A. Comer and Powell Clayton, for appellant.\n1. A materialman\u2019s lien on a boat may be enforced in the chancery court of the county where the boat is situated, \u25a0 regardless of the residence of the owner. 30 Ark. 568; 56 Id. 544; 115 Id. 230\n2. The court had jurisdiction and erred in quashing the service in Pulaski county. Personal service may be had anywhere in the State. Kirby\u2019s Digest, \u00a7\u00a7 4983, 6072, 4970, 4976, 4987. Liens of materialmen are creatures of statute and must be enforced according to the statutes. 119 Ark. 43; 114 Id. 1; 102 Id. 539;' 115 Id. 230.\n3. Hahn entered his appearance. 59. Ark. 593; 77 Id. 412; 84 Id. 573; 109 Id. 77; 85 Id. 232. He voluntarily submitted to the jurisdiction.\nJohn F. Clifford, for appellee.\n1. The chancery court had no jurisdiction over defendant Hahn, a non-resident of Lincoln county, and who was summoned there. No appearance was entered by Hahn; he only appeared specially and objected to the jurisdiction at every step. The service in Pulaski county was properly quashed. 77 Ark. 416; 4 Id. 573; 9 Mich. 154; Kirby\u2019s Digest, \u00a7\u00a7 4970, 4981, 4987; 30 Ark. 574; 56 Id. 544. The venue is determined by \u00a7\u00a7 6072-3, Kirby\u2019s Digest." }, "file_name": "0609-01", "first_page_order": 633, "last_page_order": 635 }