{
  "id": 1462289,
  "name": "Lammers v. Cart-Ritter Company",
  "name_abbreviation": "Lammers v. Cart-Ritter Co.",
  "decision_date": "1938-11-14",
  "docket_number": "4-5246",
  "first_page": "1159",
  "last_page": "1160",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "196 Ark. 1159"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "121 S.W.2d 95"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 223,
    "char_count": 2729,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.536,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 5.8591662004228935e-08,
      "percentile": 0.3638339532536453
    },
    "sha256": "48d9586bd73f6cb5baecdf4670bd694ee4fdd7f1afea761daed3d07048bb15c6",
    "simhash": "1:1c2132e651b734b1",
    "word_count": 465
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:57:18.765663+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Lammers v. Cart-Ritter Company."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "McHaney, J.\nAppellee brought this action against appellants, John Lammers and wife, and others not involved in this appeal, to foreclose a statutory lien given by \u00a7 8905 et seq_. of Pope\u2019s Digest, for the construction and equipping of an irrigation well on the west half of the northeast quarter of section 21, township 17 north, range 2 east, in Lawrence county. The answer of appellants was a general denial. The trial court found for appellee for the amount sued for, rendered judgment therefor and decreed same to be a lien on the land above described, and ordered same sold to satisfy said judgment with interest and costs. No supersedeas bond was filed, and the property was advertised and sold in accordance with said decree, report of sale made, sale approved, and deed was made to the purchaser and it approved by the court. The case is here on appeal.\nAppellants first say that the statute, \u00a7 8905 of Pope\u2019s Digest, does not give a lien on the whole tract of land above described and that it is indefinite as to what land the lien is to cover. We cannot agree. The statute says: \u201cAny person, corporation .. . . who-shall under contract . . . with the owner or lessee of any land . . . perform labor or furnish fuel material, machinery or supplies, used in the digging, drilling . . . equipping, maintaining or repairing any . . . water well . . . shall have a lien on the whole of such land or leasehold interest therein,\u201d etc. Now, it is undisputed that appellee had two separate contracts with appellants, one for the construction of the well and the other for the installation of pumping equipment, and both contracts executed at the same time. We think the lien extends to all the land, or in the language of the statute, \u201cthe whole of such land,\u201d that is the land mentioned in the contracts.\nBut, appellants say, even if there is a lien, to whom does it extend? And say it does not extend to a contractor. On the contrary it expressly so provides. The language is: \u201cAny person, corporation . . . who shall under contract, expressed or implied, etc.\u201d There is no dispute that appellee had contracts with appellants' and that they performed -the contracts.\nOther contentions are made, that there was no lien filed because the affidavit for a lien was made before the deputy clerk, instead of the clerk; that two liens were filed instead of one; and that payments made from the proceeds of the rice crop were misapplied \u2014 all of which we have carefully considered and find them without substantial merit.\nThe decree is correct, and must be affirmed. It is so ordered.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "McHaney, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "J. E. Ray, for appellant.",
      "Maddox & Greer, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Lammers v. Cart-Ritter Company.\n4-5246\n121 S. W. 2d 95.\nOpinion delivered November 14, 1938.\nJ. E. Ray, for appellant.\nMaddox & Greer, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "1159-01",
  "first_page_order": 1177,
  "last_page_order": 1178
}