Mattar v. Wathen
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from Garland Chancery Court; Alphonso Curl, Chancellor; 1. Treating the transaction as a whole, beginning with the first purchases made and extending to the last, appellants have a lien for the purchase money on the whole amount of goods purchased, under the statute.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Garland Chancery Court; Alphonso Curl, Chancellor; 1. Treating the transaction as a whole, beginning with the first purchases made and extending to the last, appellants have a lien for the purchase money on the whole amount of goods purchased, under the statute. Kirby’s Dig. § § 4966, 4967. 2. By virtue of Mrs. Wathen’s agreement that appellants could have a lien on all the goods for the unpaid purchase money, and of the fact that they were permitted to retain possession of the goods, appellants had a lien thereon enforcible in equity. 3. If there be no lien for purchase money,…
1Opinion of the CourtFrauenthal, J.
This was an action of conversion instituted in the circuit court for the recovery of the value of a lot of goods and merchandise. It was alleged in the complaint that the plaintiffs had purchased from the defendants the property sued for, and had left same in their care for a time, under an agreement that they would store same free of charge and ship them on demand, and that the defendants had refused to turn the goods over, although demand had been duly made therefor.
The defendants denied that they had sold the goods to the plaintiff, Charles Wathen, but alleged in their answer that they had…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Morris v. RootSupreme Court of Georgia · 1880
- Bridgeford & Co. v. AdamsSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1885
- Lee Wilson & Co. v. Crittenden County Bank & Trust Co.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1911
- Neal v. ConeSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1905
- Roach v. JohnsonSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1903
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Olson v. Moody, Knight & Lewis, Inc.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1922
- Rose City Bottling Works v. Godchaux Sugars, Inc.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1922