Williams v. Cunningham

52 Ark. 439
Supreme Court of Arkansas·Decided November 15, 1889·Published·Cited by 6 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

1. Leins: On future property. It is the result of all the authorities, that wherever the parties by their contract intend to create a positive lien or charge, either upon real or personal property, whether then owned by the assignor or contractor or not, or ¡f personal property, whether it is then in esse, it attaches in equity as a lien or charge upon the particular property, as soon as the assignor or contractor acquires a title thereto, against the latter, and all persons asserting a claim thereto, under him, either voluntarily, or with notice by record. Jones on Chattel Mortgages, sec. 133; Mitchell v. Winslow, 2 Story, 630; Bell v. Pelt, 51 Ark., 433.

2. Same. There was no evidence as to the value of the mortgaged cotton received by appellant; but he alleged in his answer that he had received therefor $103. It is evident that Cunningham lost the benefit of his lien on the cotton through the appropriation thereof by Williams to his own use. The court should-have rendered judgment for the $103, and interest thereon from the date of the filing of the complaint at the rate of 6 per cent., per annum.

The decree to that extent will be modified.

Cockrill, C. J., did not sit in this case.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Williams v. Cunningham, 52 Ark. 439 (Ark. 1889).

52 Ark. 439 (Williams v. Cunningham) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

United States v. Bartholomew
137 F. Supp. 700 (W.D. Arkansas, 1956)
Baskin v. Aetna Life Ins. Co.
79 S.W.2d 724 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1935)
Murray Co. v. Satterfield
187 S.W. 927 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1916)
Cox v. Smith
125 S.W. 437 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1910)
Ward v. Stark
121 S.W. 382 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1909)
Delta Cotton Co. v. Arkansas Cotton Oil Co.
97 S.W. 440 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1906)