Mitchell v. Schulte
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from Sebastian Chancery Court, Fort Smith District; J. V. Bourland, Chancellor; The letter of Miss Schulte obligated her to pay the full amount of the lumber bill for which the lien was filed. She knew that Foster owed the amount, and that a lien was filed against her property, and that there was a dispute between Foster and Boyer as to a certain payment.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Sebastian Chancery Court, Fort Smith District; J. V. Bourland, Chancellor; The letter of Miss Schulte obligated her to pay the full amount of the lumber bill for which the lien was filed. She knew that Foster owed the amount, and that a lien was filed against her property, and that there was a dispute between Foster and Boyer as to a certain payment. With complete knowledge of these facts she voluntarily agrees to pay the lumber bill in consideration of the withholding the bringing of a suit to enforce the lien for a definite period of time. 31 Ark. 222; 106 Id. 1; 110 Id. 225.…
1DissentMcCulloch, C. J.
The decision of the majority totally diregards the contract between the-parties as evidenced by the two letters set forth in the opinion. They say that the correspondence refers to the lien, but not to the payment of the debt, and refers to a lien filed in apt time, not to one which, for any reason, is invalid. In this view of the matter, the contract had no binding force whatever, for if the lien was valid it needed no new promise to make it effective,, and if the promise did not amount to an obligation to pay the debt for which the lien was asserted, it did hot rise to the dignity of a…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Jonesboro Hardware Co. v. Western Tie & Timber Co.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1918
- Fender v. HelterbrandtSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1911
- First National Bank v. AllenSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1919
- Willingham v. JordanSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1905
- Buckner v. McIlroySupreme Court of Arkansas · 1877
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.