Halbert & Son v. Baker

• Citation: 4 S.W.2d 1,176 Ark. 971
• Decision Date: 26 March 1928
• Docket Number: 306
• Parties: HALBERT & SON v. BAKER
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

4 S.W.2d 1

176 Ark. 971

HALBERT & SON v. BAKER

No. 306

Supreme Court of Arkansas

March 26, 1928

Appeal from Baxter Chancery Court; A. S. Irby, Chancellor; reversed.

STATEMENT OF FACTS.

B. S Halbert & Son brought this suit in equity against Leo F Baker and Ruth Baker, his wife, to foreclose a mechanic's and materialman's lien for the sum of $ 181.30, the balance alleged to be due them for the erection of a house for the defendants. The defendants filed an answer and cross-complaint, in which they denied that they were indebted to the plaintiffs in the sum of $ 181.30, and, by way of cross-complaint, they sought to recover the sum of $ 305 damages for the alleged breach of the building contract by the plaintiffs.

The record shows that the plaintiffs entered into a contract with the defendants to erect a house for the sum of $ 1,500. Subsequently a change in the plans was agreed upon, and the contract price was increased to $ 1,575. The plaintiffs introduced evidence tending to show that they were entitled to extras in the sum sued for.

The chancellor found that certain items, amounting to $ 64.30 were due the plaintiffs as extras, in addition to the sum of $ 25 due them on the contract price. This made a total of $ 89.30 due the plaintiffs. The chancellor disallowed two items claimed by the plaintiffs, one being for $ 80 for inside painting and the other for $ 12 for screening the porch. The chancellor further found that the defendants were entitled to recover on their cross-complaint for certain items which the plaintiffs failed to furnish under their contract, which amounted in the aggregate to $ 90. Wherefore judgment was entered in favor of the plaintiffs against the defendants for $ 89.30, and that amount was declared a lien on the real estate described in the complaint, and judgment was rendered in favor of the defendants against the plaintiffs for $ 90. These amounts were set-off against each other, which resulted in a judgment in favor of the defendants for $ 21.70. The case is here on appeal.

Decree reversed and cause remanded.

H. J Denton and Kent K. Jackson, for appellant.

OPINION

HART, C. J., (after stating the facts).

It is insisted by counsel for the plaintiffs that the court erred in refusing to allow the items of $ 80 for inside painting and $ 12 for screening the porch. These two items amounted to $ 92, and should have been allowed by the chancery court. The proof shows...