Markle v. Stackhouse
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from Woodruff Circuit Court in Chancery. Hance N. Hutton, Judge. STATEMENT BY THE COURT. This was originally a suit at law aided by attachment, by the plaintiffs, the Stackhouse Brothers, against the defendant, the Woodruff Land and Timber Company.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Woodruff Circuit Court in Chancery. Hance N. Hutton, Judge. STATEMENT BY THE COURT. This was originally a suit at law aided by attachment, by the plaintiffs, the Stackhouse Brothers, against the defendant, the Woodruff Land and Timber Company. Under the writ of attachment, a certain saw-mill was levied upon, whereupon the intervener, S. M. Markle, filed an intervening petition, claiming that the lien of the attachment was subject to a vendor’s lien and judgment thereon in his favor, and praying that the cause be transferred to the equity side of the court, which was accordingly…
1Opinion of the Court
Hughes, J.,
(after stating the facts.) It would not be profitable to set out the evidence. As we find the law to 'be, the main question in a case of this kind is, what was the intention of the party who had the structure erected? Did he intend it to be a permanent annexation to the soil, or was it erected with a view to its removal?
As evidence of what the intention was, the manner of its annexation to the soil, and the adaptation of the plant to the use or purpose to which that portion of the realty with which it is connected is appropriated, are circumstances that are to be considered, and…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Choate v. KimballSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1892
- Monticello Bank v. SweetSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1897
3Cited by5 opinions
- Ozark v. AdamsSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1904
- Field v. MorrisSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1910
- Triumph Electric Co. v. PattersonCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1914
- Vanhoozer v. GattisSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1919
- Tenniswood v. SmithSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1904