Harkrider v. Howard
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from Hot Spring Circuit Court; W. H. Evans, Judge; 1. E. L. Cotton was a necessary party. 30 Cyc. 31, 141-2. 2. The testimony was prejudicial and the instructions erroneous. 197 S. W. 1177; Kirby’s Dig., § 5999. Harkrider has been paid for all the time spent for which he- had a lien.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Hot Spring Circuit Court; W. H. Evans, Judge; 1. E. L. Cotton was a necessary party. 30 Cyc. 31, 141-2. 2. The testimony was prejudicial and the instructions erroneous. 197 S. W. 1177; Kirby’s Dig., § 5999. Harkrider has been paid for all the time spent for which he- had a lien. Part of the time he had no lien, as his labor did not contribute to producing the staves. 71 Ark. 334; 69 Id. 23. 3. For error in the instructions, see 71 Ark. 334; 199 S. W. 73. They did not properly present appellant’s theory. 1. Appellee had a lien. 128 Ark. 280; 71 Id. 338. 2. There is no error in the…
1Opinion of the Court
WOOD, J.,
(after stating the facts). The above instructions granted by the court ignored the defense made by the appellant J. H. Hamlen & Son to the effect that it had purchased the staves without any notice of appellee’s claim for lien and that at least part of the labor for which appellee claimed a lien was done while he was a partner with Harkrider in the production of the staves, and that the payment by Hamlen & Son to Harkrider for the staves settled for the labor of appellee on the staves while he was Harkrider’s partner. True, in another instruction the court told the jury in substance…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Clark v. WilsonSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1926