lien claim in Arkansas

2003Appellants do not challenge the denial of the motion for directed verdict on appeal. 3 In Shaw v. Rackensack Apartment Corp., 174 Ark. 492 , 295 S.W. 966 (1927), the court distinguished between cost-plus contracts and fixed-price contracts and allowed a lien to include profits in a fixed-price contract.

2003Appellants do not challenge the denial of the motion for directed verdict on appeal. 3 In Shaw v. Rackensack Apartment Corp., 174 Ark. 492 , 295 S.W. 966 (1927), the court distinguished between cost-plus contracts and fixed-price contracts and allowed a lien to include profits in a fixed-price contract.

2001Automotive Supply, Inc. v. Powell, 269 Ark. 255 , 599 S.W.2d 735 (1980).

2001Automotive Supply, Inc. v. Powell, 269 Ark. 255 , 599 S.W.2d 735 (1980).

1966Kennemore v. Robbins, 223 Ark. 384 , 266 S. W. 2d 64 , was a case wherein estoppel was pleaded to defeat a lien claim; and there we said: “The burden was on the appellees [landowners] to prove the facts constituting their claim of estoppel, since it is conceded that the .materials had been furnished and the lien notice filed within the statutory time.” Degen v. Acme Brick Co., 228 Ark. 1054 , 312 S. W. 2d 194 , was also a case wherein estoppel was pleaded to defeat a lien; and there we said: “The question at issue is whether the appellants [landowners] met the burden of proving their defense.”

1966Kennemore v. Robbins, 223 Ark. 384 , 266 S. W. 2d 64 , was a case wherein estoppel was pleaded to defeat a lien claim; and there we said: “The burden was on the appellees [landowners] to prove the facts constituting their claim of estoppel, since it is conceded that the .materials had been furnished and the lien notice filed within the statutory time.” Degen v. Acme Brick Co., 228 Ark. 1054 , 312 S. W. 2d 194 , was also a case wherein estoppel was pleaded to defeat a lien; and there we said: “The question at issue is whether the appellants [landowners] met the burden of proving their defense.”

1966Kennemore v. Robbins, 223 Ark. 384 , 266 S. W. 2d 64 , was a case wherein estoppel was pleaded to defeat a lien claim; and there we said: “The burden was on the appellees [landowners] to prove the facts constituting their claim of estoppel, since it is conceded that the .materials had been furnished and the lien notice filed within the statutory time.” Degen v. Acme Brick Co., 228 Ark. 1054 , 312 S. W. 2d 194 , was also a case wherein estoppel was pleaded to defeat a lien; and there we said: “The question at issue is whether the appellants [landowners] met the burden of proving their defense.”

1966Kennemore v. Robbins, 223 Ark. 384 , 266 S. W. 2d 64 , was a case wherein estoppel was pleaded to defeat a lien claim; and there we said: “The burden was on the appellees [landowners] to prove the facts constituting their claim of estoppel, since it is conceded that the .materials had been furnished and the lien notice filed within the statutory time.” Degen v. Acme Brick Co., 228 Ark. 1054 , 312 S. W. 2d 194 , was also a case wherein estoppel was pleaded to defeat a lien; and there we said: “The question at issue is whether the appellants [landowners] met the burden of proving their defense.”

1932He suggests that in lending the money the appellee bank was a volunteer and not entitled to subrogation under the doctrine announced in Hughes Co. v. Callahan. 181 Ark. 733 , 27 S. W. (2d) 509 .

1932He suggests that in lending the money the appellee bank was a volunteer and not entitled to subrogation under the doctrine announced in Hughes Co. v. Callahan. 181 Ark. 733 , 27 S. W. (2d) 509 .

1905Whitesides v. Kershaw, 44 Ark. 377 . 4.