Case Name: Halbert & Son v. Baker
Court: Arkansas Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Arkansas
Decision Date: 1928-03-26
Citations: 176 Ark. 971
Docket Number: 
Parties: Halbert & Son v. Baker.
Judges: 
Reporter: Arkansas Reports
Volume: 176
Pages: 971–973

Head Matter:
Halbert & Son v. Baker.
Opinion delivered March 26, 1928.
H. J. Denton and Kent K. Jackson, for appellant.

Opinion:
Hart, C. J.,
(after stating the facts). It is insisted by counsel for the plaintiffs that the court erred in refusing to allow the items of $80 for inside painting and $12 for screening the porch. These two items amounted to $92, and should have been allowed by the chancery court. The proof shows that it was not .a part of the contract for the erection of the house that the plaintiffs should do the inside painting or should screen the porch. By agreement between the parties these two items were to be charged as extras. The proof shows that the inside painting together with the materials furnished were reasonably worth $80, and that the materials and labor for screening the porch were worth $12. It is true there was no itemized account of these items, but this court has held that it is not necessary that a claimant file an itemized account in order to make his lien effectual. The rule is the same where the lien is sought to be enforced by one with a contract direct with the owner and by a subcontractor. Terry v. Klein, 133 Ark. 366, 201 S. W. 801.
In that case it is also held that, where labor and material are placed in the construction of a house as a completed job, the contractor is entitled to a lien, not as for labor, but as for the price of material furnished in the place to be used. To the same effect see Shaw v. Rackensack Apartment Corporation, 174 Ark. 492, 295 S. W. 966.
In the case at bar the plaintiffs were entitled to a lien in the sum of $80 for the price of the paint for the inside of the house and for $12 for the price of the screen placed on the porch, these items totaling $92.
The result of our views is that the decree must be reversed, and the cause wifi be remanded with directions to the chancery court to allow the plaintiffs the sum of $92, and a lien for this amount.
The decree will be reversed, and the cause remanded with directions to enter a decree in accordance with this opinion, rand for further proceedings according to the principles of equity. It is so ordered.