{
  "id": 1879256,
  "name": "White et al. vs. Millbourne",
  "name_abbreviation": "White v. Millbourne",
  "decision_date": "1876-11",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "486",
  "last_page": "488",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "31 Ark. 486"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 258,
    "char_count": 3890,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.481,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.38761839868174e-07,
      "percentile": 0.6417594230397217
    },
    "sha256": "7030b9895e620ab298220f8aa0594c8304220aca7f0e6db1925c200538b93318",
    "simhash": "1:b1fe1d6f7b96d0fd",
    "word_count": 667
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:38:42.897988+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "White et al. vs. Millbourne."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "PIarrison, J.:\nThis was a petition filed by John W. Millbourne in the Phillips Circuit Court, for the enforcement of a mechanic\u2019s lien for the sum of $73.90, on the edifice, or building, in the city of Helena, known as the \u201cColored Baptist Church,\u201d and to which proceeding James T. White was made a defendant.\nThe petition alleged that Millbourne had, at the instance and request of said White, done certain work on said building to the amount of $607.65; that there remained due him therefor the said sum of $73.90; and that he had, within ninety days from the completion of the work, filed with the clerk of the Circuit Court an account of his demand, showing the amount due after .allowing the proper credits, and containing a description of the property, to secure a lien thereon.\nThe suit was commenced within nine months from the filing of the account.\nWhite demurred to the jurisdiction of the court, and his demurrer being overruled, he filed an answer, in which he admitted that the work had been done on the building by Millbourne, and at his instance, but denied that it amounted to as muchas he claimed, or that there was due him $73.90. He admitted, however, that there was still due a balance of $19.10.\nThe allegation in relation to the filing of the account to secure the lien on the building was not denied.\nAfter the answer of white was filed, the petition was amended by making John M. Duffle, Robert Wilkes, Isam McNeal and A. B. Miller, the trustees of the Second Baptist Church Helena, defendants ; but it contains no averment of any interest in them ; nor shows why they were made parties.\nThe trustees entered their appearance, but filed no answer or made anj' defense.\nThe issue was tried by a jury, which returned a verdict forthe plaintiff for $38.90.\nThe defendants, the trustees, it seems, as well as White, moved for a new trial, which was overruled, and judgment was thereupon rendered in favor of the plaintiff for the sum so found due him by the jury, and for the sale of the building to satisfy the same. The defendants appealed.\nThe appellants contend, that as the amount of the debt claimed did not exceed $100, the Circuit Court did not have jurisdiction in the case, and the demurrer filed by White to the jurisdiction should have been sustained.\nThe Constitution is too explicit and clear to admit of any' doubt of the Circuit Court\u2019s jurisdiction in cases of this kind. Sec. 11 of Article vii says: \u201cThe court shall have jurisdiction, in all civil and criminal cases, the exclusive jurisdiction of which may not be vested in some other courtand by the proviso in sec. 40 of the same article, which section confers upon justices of the peace exclusive original jurisdiction in matters of contract, where the amount in controversy does not exceed $100, cases of lien on land, or where the title or possession thereof is involved, are expressly excepted from such jurisdiction.\nThe ground of the motion for a new trial was that the court gave improper-instructions to the jury for the plaintiff, and refused to give them proper instructions asked by the defendants.\nThese instructions were predicated upon evidence relating only to the liability of the trustees, which evidence, as the only issue before the jury was the amount due the plaintiff for the work, was immaterial and irrelevant.\nThere is, therefore, nothing in the motion for a new trial to be considered.\nThe .judgment is affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "PIarrison, J.:"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Tlvweatt, for appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "White et al. vs. Millbourne.\nMechanics\u2019 Lien: Jurisdiction of Circuit Court.\nThe Circuit Court has jurisdiction to enforce a mechanic\u2019s lien for a sum under \u00a7100; proceedings to enforce liens on land, or in which the title, or possession thereof, are involved, are expressly excepted from the jurisdiction conferred by the Constitution on justices of the peace.\nAPPEAL from Phillips Circuit Court.\nLion. J. N. Cypert, Circuit Judge.\nTlvweatt, for appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0486-01",
  "first_page_order": 486,
  "last_page_order": 488
}