Weber Implement & Automobile Co. v. Pearson
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from Pulaski Circuit Court, Third Division; G. W. Hendricks, Judge; 1. The act under which the lien is sought does not cover that class of supplies sold by appellee.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Pulaski Circuit Court, Third Division; G. W. Hendricks, Judge; 1. The act under which the lien is sought does not cover that class of supplies sold by appellee. Kirby’s Digest, § § 5013-14; 127 Ark. 433. 2. Appellee is not entitled to a lien for articles sold more than ninety days before filing his claim. 27 Cyc. 144. 3. If entitled to a lien at all, it should only have been on each car for the specific articles furnished for each car. 4. A lien could not be created on the cars by Aven as he did not own the cars. 34 Pac. 959; 50 N. H. 82; 19 Pick. 228; 54 Pac. 72; 56 Id. 339; 130…
1Opinion
HART, J.,
(on rehearing). Counsel in his motion for rehearing re-argues the question of whether or not Pearson acquired a lien for the placing of the casings on the machine and relies mainly upon a recent decision by the Supreme Court of Oregon in the case of Courts v. Clark, 164 Pac. 714, to support his contention. The statute under consideration in that case provides that every automobile repairer who has expended labor, skill and materials on any chattel at the request of its owner shall have a lien upon said chattel for the contract price of such expenditure notwithstanding the fact that…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Courts v. ClarkOregon Supreme Court · 1917