{ "id": 1609081, "name": "Taylor v. Crouch", "name_abbreviation": "Taylor v. Crouch", "decision_date": "1952-01-21", "docket_number": "4-9653", "first_page": "858", "last_page": "862", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "219 Ark. 858" }, { "type": "parallel", "cite": "245 S.W.2d 217" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ark.", "id": 8808, "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 34, "name_long": "Arkansas", "name": "Ark." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "133 Ark. 366", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1575067 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "201" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/133/0366-01" ] }, { "cite": "296 S. W. 27", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "173 Ark. 1024", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 8725608 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/173/1024-01" ] }, { "cite": "251 S. W. 878", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "159 Ark. 327", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 8721597 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/159/0327-01" ] }, { "cite": "200 S. W. 1027", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "132 Ark. 386", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1576637 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/132/0386-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 448, "char_count": 7012, "ocr_confidence": 0.524, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.583553995321759e-07, "percentile": 0.6808018536988064 }, "sha256": "05e9054a70407c4650d2280daa9d04f794ddd424d64a933f4719958e11aefd99", "simhash": "1:0f5a89180f7b625c", "word_count": 1225 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:52:55.172495+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "Taylor v. Crouch." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Ed. F. McFaddin, Justice.\nThis appeal necessitates a consideration of \u00a7\u25a0 51-409 Ark. Stats., relating to the procedure essential to perfect a lien on a motor vehicle which has passed out of the possession of the repairman.\nAppellees, Crouch and Corley, are partners, trading under the firm name of Crouch Equipment Company, and engaged in the motor vehicle repair business in Ft. Smith. On February 18, 1950, L. G. Markle, then the owner of an International Truck, had the appellees perform work on the truck; and the charges for. such labor and parts were $216.70. After delivering the truck to Markle, in February, 1950, appellees did no further work on it; but at various times from February to June, Markle purchased truck parts from appellee. Whether such parts were ever installed on the said truck, was a disputed question, but for purposes of this opinion, we may conclude that they were.\nSometime in July or August, 1950, Markle left the truck near his home in Clarksville and went to the State of Colorado, where he now lives. Armil Taylor took possession of the abandoned truck under some sort of claim, and sold it at a \u201cpublic sale,\u201d and Houston Taylor acquired the said truck from Armil Taylor.\nOn August 21, 1950, appellees filed with the Clerk of the Johnson Circuit Court a verified statement \u25a0which, omitting verification, was as follows:\n44AUTOMOBILE REPAIRMAN\u2019S LIEN\n4 4 Crouch Equipment Company has and claims a lien in the sum of $302.07 on a certain KB-6 International Truck Serial No. 28295, said automobile being the property of L. G-. Markle of Mulberry, Arkansas, and said lien being had and claimed by virtue of labor performed and materials and parts furnished for the repair of said automobile under a contract with the said owner of date of May, 1950, that the last of said labor, was performed and the last of said materials and parts were furnished within a period of 90 days last past.\n\u201cThat a just and true itemized statement of said labor performed and said materials and parts furnished is attached hereto, marked 4 Exhibit A \u2019 and piado a part hereof. \u2019 \u2019\nThe 44just and true itemized statement\u201d mentioned in the foregoing contained only the following:\n\u201cDate 1950 Statement Rendered Charges Credit Balance\nFebruary 18 2.13 ft 216.70 216.70*\nMarch 15 38.67 7.04 223.74*\nMarch 24 41.07 19.52 204.22*\nApril 1 45.42 23.83 228.05*\nApril 7 46.29 2.72 230.77*\nApril 15 47.21 3.10 233.87*\nApril 17 49.96 1.28 235.15*\nApril 29 42.06 14.19 249.34*\nMay 3 39.28 12.19 261.53*\nMay 6 46.76 7.25 268.78*\nMay 26 57.46 12.44 281.22*\nJune 2 1.24 12.04 293.26*\nJune 7 2.49 8.81 302.07*\u201d\nOn December 18, 1950, appellees filed this suit against appellant, Houston Taylor, seeking to subject the said International Truck to the appellees\u2019 alleged lien claim of $302.07. The Chancery Court awarded appellees a lien for only $33.29, which was the total of the three invoices (May 26, June 2 and June 7) that were the only purchases within 90 days of August 21st\u2014the date of the filing of the lien notice with the Circuit Clerk. Appellant has appealed from so much of the decree as awarded appellees a lien for any amount; and appellees have appealed from so much of the decree as refused them a lien for the full claim of $302.07.\nDecisive of the case is the fact, presented by the appellant in the trial court and renewed here, that the appellees did not comply with the essential requirements of \u00a7 51-409 Ark. Stats. Among other things, this section requires that the person seeking to enforce the lien shall file with the Clerk of the Circuit Court \u201ca just and true itemised account.\u201d The account filed by the appellees has been previously copied; and contains only the date, invoice number and amount of each purchase. Since no invoices were attached, the statement was not itemised.\nIn Brooks v. International Shoe Co., 132 Ark. 386, 200 S. W. 1027, we held that a statement, which merely listed the date and amount of each invoice, was not an itemized statement. We there quoted with approval the California Supreme Court:\n\u201cThe items must in all cases be set forth with as much particularity as the nature of the case will admit;\nWe also quoted to the same effect from Sutherland on Code Pleading:\n\u201c \u2018The items of the account furnished must be set forth with as much particularity as the nature of the case admits of. . . . \u2019 \u201d\nWebster\u2019s New International Dictionary says: \u201cItemized\u201d is \u201cto state in items, or by particulars; as, to itemise costs, charges.\u201d The same publication says an \u201citem\u201d is \u201can article; a separate particular in an enumeration, account, or total; a detail; as, the items in a bill.\u201d In 48 C. J. S. 788, the text says of \u201cItemize\u201d:\n\u201cTo set down by items; state or describe by particulars, as to demand an itemized bill; to state in items or by particulars.\u201d\nTested by our own case of Brooks v. International Shoe Co. (supra) and the other authorities cited, it is clear that the statement, filed by the appellees with the Circuit Court on August 21, 1950, was not an itemised statement. The statute here involved requires that a \u201cjust and true itemized statement\u201d be filed in order for the claimant to perfect his lien. Since no such statement was filed, it necessarily follows that the appellees have no lien. In Umstead Auto Co. v. Edwards, 159 Ark. 327, 251 S. W. 878, we held that the statute, giving an automobile repairman a lien, required strict compliance. In failing to file a \u201cjust and true itemized statement,\u201d the appellees failed to comply with the statute, so they have no lien.\nAppellees cite us to Standard Lumber Co. v. Wilson, 173 Ark. 1024, 296 S. W. 27, and Terry v. Klein, 133 Ark. 366, 201. S. W. 801, as cases holding that an itemised statement need not be filed by one seeking to enforce a lien. But these cited cases involved the materialmen\u2019s lien statute (\u00a7 51-613 Ark. Stats.) which requires that only a \u201cjust and true account\u201d be filed. The said \u00a7 51-613 Ark. Stats, does not require that an itemized statement\u201d be filed, so the cases cited by the appellant under the materialmen\u2019s lien statute are not applicable to the case at bar.\nThe decree awarding the appellees a lien is reversed and the cause is remanded, with directions to dismiss the appellees\u2019 complaint against appellant and the truck herein.\nThe witness Keller testified as to the truck and the ownership of it by appellant, Houston Taylor: \u201cIt was picked up by Armil Taylor and traded to Houston Taylor at a later date. It came to Armil Taylor after public sale. I don\u2019t know if he bought it or had some one to bid it in for him. It came into Armil Taylor\u2019s possession after the sale.\u201d\nIt was testified at the trial that the figures after each date refer to the number of the invoice, and the letters \u201cft\u201d were code letters meaning \u201cinvoice\u201d; but it was admitted that no invoices were attached to the statement filed with the Circuit Clerk.", "type": "majority", "author": "Ed. F. McFaddin, Justice." } ], "attorneys": [ "Wiley W. Bean, for appellant.", "J. H. Brock, for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "Taylor v. Crouch.\n4-9653\n245 S. W. 2d 217\nOpinion delivered January 21, 1952.\nWiley W. Bean, for appellant.\nJ. H. Brock, for appellee." }, "file_name": "0858-01", "first_page_order": 882, "last_page_order": 886 }