Royal Theater Co. v. Collins

• Decision Date: 29 January 1912
• Citation: 144 S.W. 919
• Parties: ROYAL THEATER CO. et al. v. COLLINS.
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

144 S.W. 919

ROYAL THEATER CO. et al. v. COLLINS.

Supreme Court of Arkansas.

January 29, 1912.

Appeal from Pulaski Chancery Court; John E. Martineau, Chancellor.

Suit by E. T. Collins against the Royal Theater Company and another. From a decree for plaintiff, defendants appeal. Reversed and remanded in part, and affirmed in part.

J. A. Comer, for appellants. J. W. Blackwood and J. W. Newman, for appellee.

HART, J.

Appellee filed a complaint in the chancery court, in which he alleges that he is a contractor engaged in the construction of buildings in the city of Little Rock, and as such he contracted with the appellant Royal Theater Company to construct for it a certain building on a lot owned by M. B. Sanders and leased to the Theater Company; that in pursuance of his contract he furnished the material and labor, and erected said building; that on the 21st day of December, 1910, he filed a mechanic's lien on said lot. He prays judgment for the amount sued on against both appellants, and asks that a lien therefor be declared on said lot. Appellant Royal Theater Company filed an answer denying the allegations of the complaint. M. B. Sanders did not file an answer.

The contract for the construction of the building was introduced in evidence, and it provided that the sum to be paid to the contractor for the work and materials should be $12,000. The contract also contained this further provision: "All work to be completed within 90 working days. No allowance made for inclement weather. For each day required to complete the building after this time, the contractor will pay the owner twenty dollars ($20.00) as liquidated damages, and for each day the work is completed before this time the owner will pay the contractor a bonus of the same amount."

The case was submitted to the chancellor upon the pleadings and the following agreed statement of facts: "It is hereby agreed that this cause may be submitted to the court upon the pleadings, and upon the contract and the certificate of the architect making the settlement, and also upon the agreement that since the bringing of this suit the following sum has been paid upon the account sued upon, amounting to $300; that in making the final settlement the architect included in the amount 14 days bonus at $20 per day, making $280. The plaintiff filed his mechanic's lien against said property set out in the complaint within the time allowed by law. The only question submitted to the court for its determination is: Does the contract and the law entitle the plaintiff to a mechanic's lien for the amount of $280 allowed by the architect, and that all payments were to be applied and was in payment for material furnished and labor performed in said contract?"

The chancellor found for appellee in the sum of $278.25, and decreed that a mechanic's lien existed on said lot for said amount. The case is here on appeal.

A mechanic's lien exists only by statute, and, the power to obtain a lien being given by the statute, no one can obtain a lien unless he comes within the provisions of the statute.

Section 4970 of Kirby's Digest provides in substance that every mechanic, builder, artisan, workman, laborer, or other...