Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

41 Ark. 42

Chaffin v. McFadden

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Decided May 15, 1883

Supreme Court of Arkansas · decided 1883-05-15

Hon. X. J. Pindall, Circuit Judge. G. W. Chaffin was in no attitude to complain of the judgment in rem, for he was not the owner ; and Mrs, Chaffin has no standing in court, after suffering a default, without motion to set aside, accompanied by a meritorious answer, which should appear in the bill of exceptions. 38 Ark., 504. The complaint and account together fulfill all the requirements of the statute. Cohn v. Hager, 30 Ark., 25.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1883-05-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 9 later decisions — most recently March 1987

8 state decisions

4018831890190019101920193019401950196019701980decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1OPINION.

¶2I. The complaint sufficiently alleged a personal cause of action against both of the defendants. Mrs. Chaffin, by failing to answer, admitted her personal liability, and on the trial the debt was well enough proved against her.

¶3George Chaffin did not deny the debt in his answer, and, as a witness on the trial, he admitted his personal liability for it.

¶4The pei'sonal júdgment against both appellants was, therefore, right.

¶51. coveotoro¡° Wssentials II. The complaint did not. aver all the facts necessary to-constitute a material-man’s lien on the lots, nor pray judgfor alien. No compliance with the requirements of the statute to fix alien was alleged.

¶6The complaint did not allege that within ninety days after the materials were furnished, or at any time, an account-properly verified, &e., of the demand, &c., with a description of the property to be charged with the lien, was filed in the office of the clerk of the circuit court, &c., as it should have done. Gantt’s Dig., sec. 4060, 4067 ; Ark. Gent. JR,. It. Oo. v. McKay, 30 Ark., 6S2; Hicks et al. vBranton et al., 21 Ark., 186.

¶7The statute expressly provides that when suit is brought to enforce the lien, “the petition, among other things, shall allege the facts necessary for securing a lien under the act, and a description of the property charged therewith.” Gantt’s Dig., sec. 4066-7.

¶8i. ue- * Admits •complaint Mrs. Chaffin, by her default, did not admit that a lien had been fixed on the lots for the debt, for the necessary facts-constitute a lieu were not alleged in the complajnt. And . . the court erred in overruling the first assignment m the demurrer of George Chaffin.

¶9No doubt the appellee intended to claim and enforce a lien in this suit, but his complaint ivas fatally defective for that purpose, and did not warrant so much of the judgment as is %n rem.

¶10So much of the judgment as is in personam is affirmed, so much as is in rem is reversed, and the cause remanded with leave to appellee to amend his complaint if he shall elect further to prosecute the suit to enforce a lien upon the lots.

/41/ark/42 · .json · Public domain