{
  "id": 1669005,
  "name": "KATTERJOHN CONCRETE PRODUCTS, INC. et al v. Truman L. COFFMAN et al",
  "name_abbreviation": "Katterjohn Concrete Products, Inc. v. Coffman",
  "decision_date": "1978-11-06",
  "docket_number": "78-125",
  "first_page": "503",
  "last_page": "505",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "264 Ark. 503"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "573 S.W.2d 306"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "27 S.W. 2d 1011",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.W.2d",
      "year": 1930,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "181 Ark. 700",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        8724710
      ],
      "year": 1930,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/181/0700-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "31 S.W. 2d 401",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.W.2d",
      "year": 1930,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "182 Ark. 304",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1389930
      ],
      "year": 1930,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/182/0304-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 250,
    "char_count": 3237,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.915,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 7.682524327565528e-08,
      "percentile": 0.45299764580869384
    },
    "sha256": "729e49c0351a00e77d6dfe750eac9d26ef28cb854c5e6524fff40fef76648beb",
    "simhash": "1:1f5dafb4166aea05",
    "word_count": 523
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:22:41.361067+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "We agree: Harris, C.J., and George Rose Smith and Howard, JJ."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "KATTERJOHN CONCRETE PRODUCTS, INC. et al v. Truman L. COFFMAN et al"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Frank Holt, Justice.\nThe appellants brought actions to foreclose materialmen\u2019s liens and appellee Worthen sought to foreclose its mortgage liens. The actions were consolidated for trial. The issue is the priority of liens. The chancellor held that the mortgage liens were prior to the materialmen\u2019s liens. The facts are stipulated. Appellee Coffman and his wife executed a note and mortgage on a lot to appellee Worthen Bank. The mortgage was filed for record. However, it was approximately two weeks later before Coffman acquired title from the owner of the property by warranty deed which was duly recorded. During this two weeks, appellant International Paper Company made delivery of materials to the lot site. The same sequence of events occurred during a period of approximately one month with reference to another lot. During this interval, between the giving of a mortgage and deed, appellant Katterjohn Concrete Products, Inc., made delivery of materials to that lot site. The chancellor found the sequence as to both lots to be (a) mortgage recorded, (b) construction commenced, and (d) deed recorded; Coffman, the mortgagor, had no title at the time he gave the mortgage lien; the liens of the materialmen attached after the recordation of the mortgage and before the acquisition of title by Coffman. The chancellor then held that by applying the doctrine of \u201cAfter Acquired Title,\u201d Ark. Stat. Ann. \u00a7 50-404 (Repl. 1971), Coffman\u2019s subsequently acquired titles related back to the time of the recordation of his mortgages and thus rendered them superior to the intervening liens of appellants. Appellants contend that the court erred in applying the doctrine of \u201cAfter Acquired Title\u201d to validate the mortgage. It is argued that there is no relation back. Appellants insist that the lien of Worthen\u2019s mortgage attached to the property when it was already burdened by their liens which existed at the time Coffman acquired title. In other words, the mortgage liens attached only when Coffman acquired title which was after the time that appellants\u2019 materialmen\u2019s liens had attached to the properties.\nWe rest our decision on the basis that neither Coffman nor Worthen was the owner of these lots when the transactions with appellants occurred. It is clear that a materialman\u2019s lien against property cannot exist unless the lien claimants had a valid contract with the property owner or his agent. Hawkins v. Faubel, 182 Ark. 304, 31 S.W. 2d 401 (1930); Sebastian Bldg. & Loan Assn. v. Minten, 181 Ark. 700, 27 S.W. 2d 1011 (1930). Here there is no evidence to meet this requirement. It does not appear that either appellee Coffman or appellee Worthen (which furnished construction money) had any title or interest in the properties at the time appellants\u2019 liens allegedly attached to the property.\nAffirmed.\nWe agree: Harris, C.J., and George Rose Smith and Howard, JJ.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Frank Holt, Justice."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "W. P. Hamilton, Beresford L. Church, Jr., Boyce E. Hawk, Paul Stanfield, and Robert M. Gannaway, for appellants.",
      "Owens, McHaney & McHaney, by: John C. Calhoun, Jr., for appellees."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "KATTERJOHN CONCRETE PRODUCTS, INC. et al v. Truman L. COFFMAN et al\n78-125\n573 S.W. 2d 306\nOpinion delivered November 6, 1978\n(Division I)\n[Rehearing denied December 18, 1978.]\nW. P. Hamilton, Beresford L. Church, Jr., Boyce E. Hawk, Paul Stanfield, and Robert M. Gannaway, for appellants.\nOwens, McHaney & McHaney, by: John C. Calhoun, Jr., for appellees."
  },
  "file_name": "0503-01",
  "first_page_order": 531,
  "last_page_order": 533
}