APPEAL from Lonoke Circuit Court in Chancery.

Hon. J. W. Martin, Circuit Judge.

STATEMENT.

In February, 1879, Hallum & England, partners in the practice of law, filed in the Lonoke Circuit Court their complaint in equity against Lane, alleging that as practising attorneys of said court, they had, at the employment of Lane, instituted and prosecuted a suit in equity for him in said court, against one Everett, for the recovery of a certain tract of land in said county, (which they described) and for rents ; and that they were successful — had recovered the land and rents, and were reasonably entitled to a fee of one hundred and forty dollars for their services, for which sum they claimed a lien against the land, and had filed their claim of lien in court as required by law; and they prayed that the land be sold to pay it.

Silas B. Fields, showing an interest.in the laud, was allowed to be made a defendant, and answered, alleging in substance, that since the recovery .of the land for Lane he had purchased the land under a judgment and execution, recovered by him against Lane ; had purchased through the plaintiff, Hallum, as his agent, and under the representation from plaintiffs before then that their lien was only $80 ; and that plaintiffs had frequently, since then, represented to him that their lien was $80, and he asked that not more than $80, if anything, be allowed. He exhibited several letters written by plaintiffs to him since his purchase, in which they claimed a fee and lien of $80. He also filed with his answer a demurrer to the complaint.

Lane made no defense.

The cause was heard upon the complaint, answer, demurrer, and an agreed statement of facts. This statement showed that Fields purchased the land at the amount of his judgment against Lane ; that the statement in the letters to Fields, that the amount of the lien was $80, was an honest mistake of the plaintiff, Hallum, which was subsequently corrected, and that the clerk in recording the lieu upon the margin, of the record had made it $100 instead of $140.

The court found that the plaintiffs wore entitled to a fee of $100 for their services, and rendered a personal judgment against Lane for that amount, and decreed it a lien upon the land, and ordered that the land be sold to satisfy it if it was not paid in sixty days. Fields appealed.

1, A lien is neither a jus in re, nor a jus in rem, proper■iy nor debt, but a right to have satisfaction out of property. Roberts et al v. Jades, 31 Arle., 601.

…

Citation profile

How this case has been treated — in progress