{ "id": 8726544, "name": "Loring et al. vs. Flora", "name_abbreviation": "Loring v. Flora", "decision_date": "1863-06", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "151", "last_page": "154", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "24 Ark. 151" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ark.", "id": 8808, "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 34, "name_long": "Arkansas", "name": "Ark." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "21 Ark. 186", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1868305 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/21/0186-01" ] }, { "cite": "21 Ark., 188", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "5 Ark., 237", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 8726956 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/5/0237-01" ] }, { "cite": "21 Ark., 188", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "opinion_index": 0 } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 366, "char_count": 6224, "ocr_confidence": 0.41, "pagerank": { "raw": 9.427949201423758e-08, "percentile": 0.5166125515425802 }, "sha256": "2afc20e8181eb3f3b644d7414a04f2ca79364898ac8aba45aae1694804264c79", "simhash": "1:13f204336f24f164", "word_count": 1101 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T14:52:35.837715+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "Loring et al. vs. Flora." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Mr. Chief Justice ENGlish\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\nThis was a proceeding by scire facias to establish a mechanic\u2019s lien.\nOn the 9tli of April, 1860, James Flora, the mechanic, filed in the office of the clerk of the circuit court of Jefferson county, an account, suborn to, against Horace G. Loring, amounting to $116.00, for work done, and materials furnished, upon a house situated on lots 7 and 8, block 46, Woodruff\u2019s addition to the town of Pine Bluff.\nOn the same day an abstract of the account was entered in the judgment docket, and a sawe facias issued against Loring, the debtor, and Wm. F. Owen, alleged to be in possession of the premises, claiming by purchase, etc.\nOwen filed five pleas, th q first, second, third and fifth alleging, in general terms, that on the 14th March, 1860, and before Flora filed his account in the clerk\u2019s office and caused an abstract thereof to, be entered in the judgment docket, he purchased the building and lots of Loring for a valuable consideration.\nThefouHh plea alleged that the work and labor and materials furnished were not worth one hundred dollars and over.\nThe court sustained a demurrer to the pleas, and rendered a personal judgment against both of the defendants for the amount of the account, and ordered that the judgment constitute a lien upon the house and lots\u2019until paid, etc.\nThe defendants brought error.\nThe object of the first, second, third and fifth pleas was to show that Owen acquired title to the property from Loring before the statutory lien of Flora attached, and thereby defeated it.\nUnder the statute, where there is no registered contract, the lien of the mechanic commences at the time he files his account, properly made out and verified by affidavit, in the clerk\u2019s office, and causes an abstract thereof to be entered in the judgment docket, and not before. Gould's Dig., 112, sec. 4, 26; Hicks et al. vs. Branton et al., 21 Ark., 188.\nIf, before the lien of Flora was thus fixed, Owen obtained a valid title to the property, by some legal mode of conveyance, and Flora had constructive notice thereof by registration of the conveyance, or actual notice, his lien was defeated.\nIn McCulloch vs. Caldwell, 5 Ark., 237, the party contesting the mechanic\u2019s lien, alleged in his plea, in general*terms, that he purchased the property before the lien attached, \u201c on execution on sundry judgments,\u201d etc., and the court held the plea bad because the pleader failed to set out the judgments and executions under which he purchased and acquired title.\nIn this case the pleas are more general than in that, for they fail to allege that Owen obtained title to the property by any deed or conveyance whatever \u2014 and the court properly sustained the demurrer to the pleas.\nThe statute only allows the mechanic a lien where his demand exceeds one hundred dollars. See. 1. It was doubtless the object of the fov/rth plea to put in issue the amount of the demand, and to defeat the lien, if upon trial, it turned out not to exceed a hundred dollars as stated in the account filed, etc.\nThe only ground of objection taken to the plea in the demurrer, was(ithat the plea was not sworn to.\nWe know of no law requiring such a plea to be supported by an affidavit, and if it were required, the want of it can only be taken advantage of by motion to strike out, and not by demurrer, as has been repeatedly decided by this court.\nThe rendering of the judgment against Owen personally, for the debt was a gross error. He was in no way personally liable for the demand, and was made a party merely for the purpose of contesting his claim to the property on which Flora sought to fix his lien, and subject it to the satisfaction of his debt.\nFor the errors above indicated, the judgment must be reversed, and the cause remanded for further proceedings.", "type": "majority", "author": "Mr. Chief Justice ENGlish" } ], "attorneys": [ "(xARLAND & KaNdolph, for the plaintiffs." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "Loring et al. vs. Flora.\n\"Where there is no registered contract, the mechanic\u2019s lien commences at the time that he files his sworn account in the clei'k\u2019s office, and causes an abstract thereof tobe entered in the judgment docket. (Q-oulSs Big., ch. 112, secs. 4-26 Sicks vs. Branton, 21 Ark., 188.)\nIf before the lien is thus fixed a' third person obtains a valid title to the property by some legal mode of conveyance, and the mechanic has constructive notice thereof by registration of the conveyance, or actijal notice, his lien is defeated.\nBut the pleas failing to state that the defendant had acquired title by any deed or conveyance whatever, they were bad on demurrer,\nA mechanic\u2019s lien is only allowed where the demand exceeds one hundred dollars.\nA plea alleging that the plaintiff\u2019s demand did not exceed one hundred dollars, need not be sworn to.\nAnd in any case the defect that a plea is not sworn to, should be taken advan- \u25a0 tnge of by motion to strike out, and not by demurrer.\nOne of the defendants in a proceeding to foreclose a mechanic\u2019s lien, having been made a party merely because he was alleged to be in possession, claiming by purchase, it was error to enter judgment against him personally for the debt.\nError to Jefferson Circuit Court.\nHon. JohN C. M\u00fcRRAy, Circuit Judge.\n(xARLAND & KaNdolph, for the plaintiffs.\nIn this case, there is neither allegation nor proof that Loring had any estate or interest of any character in, or even any pos session of the lots on which the building was erected. Brown vs. Morrison, 5 Aria. Hep., 217. Gould\u2019s Dig., ch. 112, seo. 1.\nThe lien given to the mechanic is dependent upon his compliance with the requirements of sections two and three of the statute. (Gould\u2019s Dig., ch. 112.) And until the account verified by affidavit is filed, no lien attaches. Hicks vs. Brcunton, 21 Ark. 186.\nThe'title to the property having passed to Owen, before any lien in favor of Flora had attached, the property cannot be made subject to it. McCullough vs. Caldwell, 5 Ark. A?., 237; 2 Smith\u2019s (H. Y.) Rep., 583.\nThe facts stated in the 4th plea were sufficient to defeat the action \u2014 no lien being given by the statute where the value of the work, etc.,, does not exceed one hundred dollars.\nThe judgment is wholly incorrect \u2014 it was a proceeding in rem, and no personal judgment could be rendered. Sec\u2019s 9 etc., ch. 12, Gould\u2019s Dig., 5 Ark. R., 237." }, "file_name": "0151-01", "first_page_order": 159, "last_page_order": 162 }