Central Lumber Co. v. Braddock Land & Granite Co.

• Decision Date: 11 November 1907
• Citation: 105 S.W. 583,84 Ark. 560
• Parties: CENTRAL LUMBER COMPANY v. BRADDOCK LAND & GRANITE COMPANY
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

105 S.W. 583

84 Ark. 560

CENTRAL LUMBER COMPANY v. BRADDOCK LAND & GRANITE COMPANY

Supreme Court of Arkansas

November 11, 1907

Appeal from Pulaski Chancery Court; Jesse C. Hart, Chancellor reversed.

Decree reversed and cause remanded.

A. J Newman, for appellant.

Appellant should have been decreed a lien for the material furnished on all the property in which it was used.Kirby's Digest§ § 4970-4994;77 Ark. 35;63 Ark. 367;15 Am. & Eng. Enc.Law (1 Ed.), 73, note 3;58 Ark. 7.It is not necessary, in order to establish the lien, to show that the materials furnished was used in any particular house, or even that they were used in the construction of any of the buildings, provided they were furnished under the contract.76 Md. 337;25 Md. 297.

Bradshaw Rhoton & Helm, for appellee.

BATTLE, J. HART, J., being disqualified, did not participate.

OPINION

BATTLE, J.

The Central Lumber Company brought this suit against the Braddock Land & Granite Company, M. E Chappell and A. J.Good to enforce a lien for material furnished for the construction of certain houses on lots in the city of Little Rock.The Braddock Land & Granite Company was the owner of the lots.Chappell and Good contracted with it to build the houses, and purchased from the Central Lumber Company a part of the material used for that purpose, and built the houses.The Central Lumber Company alleged in its complaint that there is due it for such materials the sum of $ 1,710.75, and that it has a lien for that amount on the houses and the lots, which has been perfected according to the statutes in such cases made and provided.The Braddock Land & Granite Company answered and denied these allegations, but Chappell and Good, answering, admitted them.

Upon the evidence adduced by the parties, the chancery court found that the Braddock Land & Granite Company is indebted to Chappell and Good in the sum of $ 604.88 for the construction of the houses, and that Chappell and Good are indebted to the Central Lumber Company in the sum of $ 1,710.75 for materials furnished, and the Lumber Company had a lien for $ 619.92 on a certain part of the houses and lots on which it claims a lien, and decreed accordingly.Plaintiff appealed.

The right to the lien for the amount claimed by appellants depends upon the proper construction of the statute, which provides: "Every mechanic, builder, artisan, workman, laborer, or other person, who shall do or perform any work upon, or furnish any material for, any building, erection, improvement upon land, or for repairing the same, under or by virtue of any contract with the owner or proprietor thereof, or his agent, trustee, contractor or sub-contractor, upon complying with the provisions of this act, shall have for his work or labor done, or materials * * * furnished, a lien upon such building erection or improvement, and upon the land belonging to such owner or proprietor on which the same are situated, to the extent of one acre; or if such building, erection or improvement be upon any lot of land in any town, city or village, then such lien shall be upon such building, erection or improvements and the lots or land upon which the same are situated," etc.Kirby's Digest, § 4970.

Statutes like this, using almost the same language, have been construed differently, some courts holding that the materials furnished for the building must be actually used in its construction or repair before it can become a lien under such statutes, while others hold that the actual use of the materials is not requisite if they are furnished for the particular building or improvement.Phillips on Mechanics' Liens(3 Ed.), §§ 148-162;2 Jones on Liens(2 Ed.), § 1329;20 Am. & Eng. Enc.Law, 346, and cases cited.

We prefer the former construction.We think the statute was intended to enforce justice; that the party who has enhanced the value of the property by the incorporation therein of his materials or labor shall have security in the same for the amount due therefor.In this way the owner is compensated for the incumbrances, and justice is done to all parties.

In opposition to this view it has been said: "It would be unreasonable to require the materialman to follow the materials from his place of business to the building, and to make positive proof of the fact that they were actually...