From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Half Moon Gin Co. v. E. C. Robinson Lumber Co.

Supreme Court of Arkansas
Jun 19, 1944
181 S.W.2d 239 (Ark. 1944)

Opinion

No. 4-7414

Opinion delivered June 19, 1944.

1. MECHANICS' LIENS. — Under 8865 of Pope's Dig., materials furnished for a building must be actually used in it before a lien can be acquired, but where materials purchased for a building are delivered by the materialman at or near where the building is to be erected and such building is actually completed of materials of the description of those furnished, it is prima facie evidence that such materials were used in its construction and the burden is on the owner to show that they were not so used. 2. MECHANICS' LIENS — JURY QUESTION. — In appellee's action to establish a lien for materials furnished for the construction of a building by appellant defended on the ground that not all the materials went into the building, the conflicting evidence presented a question for the jury to determine and the burden was on appellant to show that not all the materials were used in the construction of its building. 3. APPEAL AND ERROR — SUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE. — The finding of the trial court that the materials furnished went into the building constructed by appellant cannot be said to be against the preponderance of the evidence.

Appeal from Mississippi Chancery Court, Chickasawba District; Francis Cherry, Chancellor; affirmed.

Reid Evrard, for appellant.

Shane Fendler, and Walter L. Pope, for appellee.


This is a suit by appellee against appellant to enforce a mechanic's lien against appellant's real property in the sum of $701.15, for material and supplies furnished and delivered by appellee to appellant's contractor in the construction of certain buildings on its gin site. Appellant admits that all the material listed in appellee's itemized statement of account was furnished and delivered to its contractor, Raymond Sperr, but contends that a substantial amount thereof was moved away from said gin site by Sperr and did not go into the construction of the buildings on which lien is claimed. This is the only issue presented by this appeal.

The trial court entered a decree in favor of appellee for $701.15, fixed a lien on appellant's gin property to secure same and ordered it foreclosed and the property sold to pay same. This appeal followed.

Under our mechanics' lien statute, 8865 of Pope's Digest, as construed by this court, materials furnished for a building must be actually used in it before a lien will be acquired, but where materials purchased for a building are delivered by the materialman at or near where the building is to be erected or is being erected, and such building is actually completed of materials of the description of those furnished, this fact is prima facie evidence that such materials were used in its construction, and the burden is on the owner to show that they were not so used. Central Lumber Co. v. Braddock Land Granite Co., 84 Ark. 560, 105 S.W. 583, 13 Ann. Cas. 11; Van Houten Lrb. Co. v. Planters Nat'l Bank, 159 Ark. 535, 252 S.W. 614; Standard Lbr. Co. v. Wilson, 173 Ark. 1024, 296 S.W. 27.

Therefore, appellant had the burden of showing that some of the materials delivered by appellee on the gin site of appellant did not enter into the construction of its buildings. It is conceded that some of the cement so delivered was used by the contractor, Sperr, elsewhere, but this cement was paid for by Sperr and proper credit was shown on the statement of account. It is appellant's contention that a portion of cement so delivered was used on other jobs referred to as the Dell Gin and the Dell Compress, but the check produced in payment to Sperr for the cement used on those jobs was dated 25 days before any cement was delivered on appellant's gin site by appellee, and could not have been a part of that so delivered.

Whether any of the materials here involved did not enter into the construction of appellant's improvements was purely a question of fact, with the burden on appellant. The trial court held against appellant and we cannot say its holding is against the preponderance of the evidence. In fact we agree that it failed to meet the burden imposed upon it.

Affirmed.


Summaries of

Half Moon Gin Co. v. E. C. Robinson Lumber Co.

Supreme Court of Arkansas
Jun 19, 1944
181 S.W.2d 239 (Ark. 1944)
Case details for

Half Moon Gin Co. v. E. C. Robinson Lumber Co.

Case Details

Full title:HALF MOON GIN COMPANY v. E. C. ROBINSON LUMBER COMPANY

Court:Supreme Court of Arkansas

Date published: Jun 19, 1944

Citations

181 S.W.2d 239 (Ark. 1944)
181 S.W.2d 239

Citing Cases

Eudora Lumber Co. v. Neal Jones

The three tickets for which the judgment was given were signed by an employee of appellant and showed…

Del Mack Constr. Co. v. Owens

[3-6] The consistent rule has been to place the burden on the supplier to show that the materials for which…