{ "id": 8723380, "name": "Emerson v. Hedrick", "name_abbreviation": "Emerson v. Hedrick", "decision_date": "1883-11", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "263", "last_page": "265", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "42 Ark. 263" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ark.", "id": 8808, "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 34, "name_long": "Arkansas", "name": "Ark." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "27 Ark., 566", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "27 Ark., 564", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1885786 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/27/0564-01" ] }, { "cite": "27 Ark., 564", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1885786 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/27/0564-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 299, "char_count": 4370, "ocr_confidence": 0.466, "pagerank": { "raw": 3.0780564602475955e-07, "percentile": 0.857807540130718 }, "sha256": "b4669962ec54a35a33c557647f6bf4903474ef3103c6aea6a58ab325d0c18cd5", "simhash": "1:e5af1118f66c62a4", "word_count": 765 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:26:49.915053+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "Emerson v. Hedrick." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "OPINION.\nThe only point made here for appellant is, that the complaint did not show that appellee produced the hay, and therefore he had no lien upon it for his labor.\nThe argument is, that prairie hay is a natural product, and, being such, appellee produced nothing by cutting and raking it, but simply changed its form or assisted in putting it in a marketable condition.\nThe statute provides that laborers who perform work and labor for any person under a written or verbal contract, if unpaid for the same, shall have an absolute lien on the production of their labor for such work and labor. Gantt\u2019s Digest, sec. 4079, etc.\nThe person having such lien is required to make a, sworn statement of the amount due, the kind of service, for whom rendered, material furnished, etc., and the statement must contain \u201c a list of laud, property, crops, or other production of his labor charged,\u201d and upon this,, process in the nature of an attachment issue. Ib., secs. 4080-1-2, etc.\nThe whole statute was construed in Dano v. M. O. R. R. R. Co., 27 Ark., 564, in which the word \u201c production,\u201d etc., was defined. See also Taylor, Bradford Co. v. Hathaway, 29 Ib., 597.\nHay is grass eut\u2019and dried for fodder \u2014 grass prepared for preservation. Make hay while the sun shines. Webster.\nWild prairie grass is not hay, but when cut or mowed and raked it becomes hay, the drying or curing occurring between the former and the latter process. Hay may therefore ivith propriety be said to be the \u201cproduction\u201d of the laborer who cuts and rakes it \u2014 in other words makes-it. To hold otherwise would be a very narrow construction of the statute.\nAffirmed.", "type": "majority", "author": null } ], "attorneys": [ "John C. $ C. W. England for appellee.", "George Sibley for appellant." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "Emerson v. Hedrick.\nLaborer's Lien: Cutting and raking grass.\nHay is the production of the laborer who cuts and rakes the grass, and he has a lien on it for the price or value of his labor.\nAPPEAL from Prairie Circuit Court.\nHon. J. N. Cypert, Circuit Judge.\nJohn C. $ C. W. England for appellee.\nPrairie hay is a natural production, and being such, the plaintiffs produced nothing by cutting it, but simply changed its form, or assisted in putting it in a marketable condition. Having produced nothing, they were not entitled to enforce a lien against the hay. 27 Ark., 564-\nGeorge Sibley for appellant.\nAppellee was a laborer within the meaning of the statute, and entitled to a lien on the production of his labor. Production is the fruit of labor, it is the result, effect, yield of labor. (See Webster in verbum.) See also as to \u201c labor.\u201d Hay does not grow in bales on the land, but to produce hay, the grass requires labor, rakes, mowers, balers, etc., to cut, rake, cure and bale; hence it is the production of the laborer, etc. Relies also on 27 Ark., 566-7, so far as applicable.\nSTATEMENT.\nEnglish, C. J. This is a suit to enforce a laborer\u2019s lien upon about seventy-five tons of prairie hay. The suit was commenced before a justice of the peace of Prairie County, by William Hedrick, against Lee and Baugh. Hedrick filed an affidavit before the j ustice (which served as a complaint), in which he stated that defendants were justly in-debtecl to him in the sum of $120, for cutting and raking hay for them, which they had hauled and stacked at places-named, and that he had a laborer\u2019s liea thereon under the statute; and praying that it be attached, etc.\nLaborer's Lien: Making hay.\nProcess was issued, the hay seized, and A. Emerson, doing business under the style of A. Emerson & Co., inter-pleaded for the hay, alleging that he owned half of it, and held a mortgage upon the other half, executed by the defendant, and that plaintiff was not entitled to a laborer\u2019s lien upon any part thereof.\nThe defendant made no defense before the justice; there was a trial upon the interplea, the lien of the plaintiff was sustained and judgment for his debt, etc.\nEmerson took an appeal to the Circuit Court for himself and the defendants.\nIn the Circuit Court he moved to quash the attachment on the -ground that plaintiff had no lien on the hay, and the motion was overruled. He then demurred to plaintiff\u2019s complaint, and the demurrer was overruled. In the motion and demurrer defendants were joined with Emerson. They rested on the demurrer, and judgment was rendered in favor of plaintiff against defendants for his debt, etc., and the hay condemned for its satisfaction. The interpleader, Emerson, appealed to this court." }, "file_name": "0263-01", "first_page_order": 261, "last_page_order": 263 }