{ "id": 1382181, "name": "Thompson v. Hickman", "name_abbreviation": "Thompson v. Hickman", "decision_date": "1924-05-26", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "469", "last_page": "472", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "164 Ark. 469" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ark.", "id": 8808, "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 34, "name_long": "Arkansas", "name": "Ark." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "87 Ark. 79", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "183 S. W. 728", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "44 Ark. 56", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1893438 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/44/0056-01" ] }, { "cite": "41 Ark. 42", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1896153 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/41/0042-01" ] }, { "cite": "58 Ark. 39", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1329145 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/58/0039-01" ] }, { "cite": "12 Ark. 599", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 8727955 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/12/0599-01" ] }, { "cite": "82 Ark. 455", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1529024 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/82/0455-01" ] }, { "cite": "87 Ark. 72", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1519115 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/87/0072-01" ] }, { "cite": "136 Ark. 537", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1569946 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/136/0537-01" ] }, { "cite": "68 Ark. 263", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1334054 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/68/0263-01" ] }, { "cite": "94 Ark. 572", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1545353 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/94/0572-01" ] }, { "cite": "157 Ark. 385", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1357221 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/157/0385-01" ] }, { "cite": "97 Ark. 541", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1318876 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/97/0541-01" ] }, { "cite": "89 Ark. 117", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1515209 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/89/0117-01" ] }, { "cite": "66 Ark. 113", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1909730 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/66/0113-01" ] }, { "cite": "44 Ark. 60", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "94 Ill. 266", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 2730046 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/94/0266-01" ] }, { "cite": "145 Ill. 238", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 5486395 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/145/0238-01" ] }, { "cite": "21 L. R. A. 489", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "L.R.A.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "32 Ark. 59", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1877118 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/32/0059-01" ] }, { "cite": "63 Ark. 367", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 8723155 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/63/0367-01" ] }, { "cite": "41 Ark. 42", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1896153 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/41/0042-01" ] }, { "cite": "58 Ark. 39", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1329145 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/58/0039-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 480, "char_count": 7573, "ocr_confidence": 0.495, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.2866837120159728e-07, "percentile": 0.6188380094746837 }, "sha256": "7ba36693507a6cf5d24a4ff772ea8d4e38d7d44e179d1e687fce3e59539e84ff", "simhash": "1:50e3447c313abe88", "word_count": 1340 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:06:17.410158+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "Thompson v. Hickman." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Smith, J.\nAppellee recovered judgment against appellant and certain other defendants, who have not appealed, for the sum of $550 alleged to be due him for drilling an oil well. The suit was filed January 6, 1923, which was prior to the passage of act No. 615 of the Acts of 1923, \u00a7 12 of which amends \u00a7 6941, C. & M. Digest, and this amendatory act has therefore no bearing on this case.\nThe complaint alleged that, on June 8, 1922, J. M. Stocks conveyed a forty-acre tract of land to John L. Thompson, but that prior thereto, on May 5,1921, Stocks had executed an oil and gas lease to F. W. Higgins, who, \u2022on March 22, 1922, assigned the lease to the Pure Oil Company, a corporation, which company assigned a one-fourth interest therein to the Newblock Oil Company, a corporation, and these companies contracted with Harry C. Thompson to drill a well on the land, and H. C. Thompson employed appellee as a laborer at $10 per day, and, pursuant to this employment, appellee performed labor for fifty-five days.\nThe complaint alleged that the lease was in writing, and was in possession of the defendants, and had never been recorded, and there was a prayer that it be produced, but this was not done. The complaint alleged that John I. Thompson and the companies named \u201caccepted the benefits of the work of the plaintiff.\u201d There was a prayer for judgment for $550, and that this \u201cjudgment be declared a lien on the lease and the land above described,\u201d and that the same be ordered sold in satisfaction of the judgment if the same was not paid.\nJohn I. Thompson, though duly summoned, failed to answer, and a personal judgment was rendered ag\u2019ainst him as well as the other defendants, and the amount thereof was declared to be a first and prior lien on the land, and a commissioner was appointed to sell the land if the judgment was not paid within ten days. It is from this judgment that Thompson has appealed.\nThis suit was brought under the authority of \u00a7 6941, C. & M. Digest, which gives every laborer and other persons who shall dig, bore or construct any well or cistern a lien upon the land or so much thereof as is necessary to cover the debt. Assuming, without deciding, that this section of the statute applies to an oil or gas well, we proceed to consider the validity of the judgment against Thompson, the only defendant who has appealed.\nIn the case of Meek v. Parker, 63 Ark. 367, Mr. Justice R-iddiok said: \u201cThe lumber company held the tract of land1, upon which their sawmill, boiler, engine, dry-house, etc., were situated, under a lease for a term of years. It is contended that the improvements for which the materials were furnished, being placed upon leased lands, must therefore be treated as personal property, and that no lien attaches to such land for materials furnished for the making of such improvements. Rut this contention cannot be sustained. \u2018The estates of tenants for terms of years are liable for the improvements made by them upon the demised premises. The lien extends to their entire interest under the lease, but does not affect the reversion of the lessor, unless he, by some act of his own, has obligated his estate.\u2019 Phillips, Mechanics\u2019 Liens, \u00a7 191; White v. Chaffin, 32 Ark. 59; McCullough v. Caldwell, 5 Id. 238; Paulsen v. Manske, 9 A. S. R. 532, and note.\u201d\nIn the note' to the annotated case of Showalter v. Lowndes, 3 A. & E. Ann. Cas. 1096, numerous cases, including that of Meek v. Parker, supra, are cited to the same effect.\nIn the case of Williams v. Vanderbilt, 21 L. R. A. 489, the Supreme Court of Illinois (145 Ill. 238) said: \u2018 \u2018 The party with whom the contract is made by the person furnishing the labor or materials is only regarded as owner, within the meaning of the law, to the extent of the interest which he owns. It is that interest which is subjected to the lien. Hickox v. Greenwood, 94 Ill. 266. A tenant for life or years cannot, by contract, create a lien upon the fee. He may, by contract, create a lien to the extent of his right and interest in the premises, hut no further.\u201d\nIt follows therefore that a lien was improperly declared against the fee, unless John I. Thompson was under some contractual obligation to pay appellee his wages.\nAs has been said, judgment was rendered by default against John I. Thompson, and the question therefore arises whether the allegations of the complaint were sufficient to support the judgment.\n\u201cThe rendition of a judgment by default upon a complaint which fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action is an error for which the judgment should be reversed on appeal. Benton v. Holliday, 44 Ark. 60; Railway Co. v. State, 58 Ark. 39; Elliott, Appellate Procedure, \u00a7'\u00a7 471, 475.\u201d See also Warner v. Hess, 66 Ark. 113; Barnhill v. Polk, 89 Ark. 117; Lindsey v. Bloodworth, 97 Ark. 541; Wilson v. Overturf, 157 Ark. 385; Koons v. Markle, 94 Ark. 572; Chaffin v. McFadden, 41 Ark. 42; American Freehold Mortgage Co. v. McManus, 68 Ark. 263; Pettus v. Bird, 136 Ark. 537; Neimeyer v. Claiborne, 87 Ark. 72; Sproull v. Miles, 82 Ark. 455.\nThe complaint contains no allegation that appellee was employed by Thompson or that Thompson promised to pay for the work. The only allegation is that he accepted the benefits of appellee\u2019s work. This, however, is not sufficient to impose liability on appellant. It was the duty of the lessee to drill the well, and appellant was, of course, entitled to the benefits derived therefrom under the terms of the lease, whatever they may have been, and if he did no more than to accept these benefits \u2014 whatever they were \u2014 and the complaint alleges nothing else, no cause of action is stated against him, and no judgment should have been rendered against him.\nThe judgment against Thompson must therefore be reversed, and, if the complaint is not amended to state a cause of action against him, it must be dismissed.", "type": "majority", "author": "Smith, J." } ], "attorneys": [ "McKay & Smith, for appellant.", "P. C. Grumpier and Joe Joiner, for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "Thompson v. Hickman.\nOpinion delivered May 26, 1924.\n1. Mines and minerals \u2014 oil lease \u2014 laborer\u2019s lien against fee.\u2014 A lien, under Crawford & Moses\u2019 Dig., \u00a7 6941, for labor furnished in drilling an oil well, was improperly declared against the fee, where the lienor was employed by one who was drilling a well under contract with lessees of the land.\n2. Appeal and error \u2014 judgment by default. \u2014 A judgment by default upon a complaint which fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action is reversible on appeal.\n3. Judgment \u2014 default judgment not sustained when. \u2014 A judgment by default against the owner of the fee in land for the amount of the lien of a laborer working- for a contractor employed by lessees to drill an oil well, was not sustained by a complaint which alleged that the owner accepted the benefits of the work and failed to allege that the lienor was employed by the owner, or that the owner promised to pay for the work.\nAppeal from Columbia Circuit Court; L. 8. Britt, Judge;\nreversed.\nMcKay & Smith, for appellant.\nDefault after legal service is an admission of all the allegations made in the complaint, but not that the facts alleged entitled plaintiff to recover. 12 Ark. 599; 58 Ark. 39. If the allegations are insufficient to support the judgment, it will be reversed. 41 Ark. 42; 44 Ark. 56.\nP. C. Grumpier and Joe Joiner, for appellee.\nEvery reasonable presumption should be indulged in favor of the bill. 183 S. W. 728. Where judgment is entered by default it will be presumed that the evidence was insufficient to support it. 87 Ark. 79. A judgment by default must be presumed to be valid until it is shown by the record to be to the contrary." }, "file_name": "0469-01", "first_page_order": 491, "last_page_order": 494 }