ARK.] MCRAE' V HAMMoND. 329 MORAL V. HAMMOND. - •• 472984 Opinion delivered April 24, 1933. . • • ATTACHMENT—PROPERTY SUBJECT TO.—Where a debtor's interest in attached property was limited to the excess value' over the cost and labor of its manufacture, and there was no such excess, his creditor obtained nothing by attachment. : Appeal from Prairie Circuit Court, Northern District; W. J. Waggoner,-Judge; affirmed.
- -330 MoRAE zf.,1-1Amm1jx.n. • [187 Emmet V aughan, i for appellant: Glen 11: Wimmer; for appellee.: Ma-TANEY, J:' ThiS lawsuit driginated' the' jtistice Court,' Where aPPellant suffered defeat,. Was Appealed "to the eircuit*cdnrt With like result[and now it . is here And must' be affirmed. It ainSe 'in the 01J:owing manner George Wright Jones' leased : a 'Sawmill 'At 'DeS Arc. - He had a- CuStonier in Menaphis who desired 'to linrchaSe two carloads of pecan hmibet. Jdnes did not haire the lamber nor any money -With which to bny the logs to 'make 'it. Ap'- pellee Hanimond had the timber 'and' agreed with jones furnish the logs at the mill for $16 per, theusand feet with the understanding that the labor and cest of the logs were to be first paid out of the sale Price of the lumber before Jones was to have anything. Whatever' remained over and abOve the cost of labor And logs' was 'to go to 'Jones. The lumber: was to be inspected and paid for in Des Arc before shipment. One carload 'was' thus handled, but appellee did not get any pay for , his logs. The second car was delayed in 'naanufacture by a breakdown in the mill, and the inspectOr had te; return : 0 Memphis, So it was agreed that , this car should be ShipPed subject to destination inspeetion. Later it Was loaded, billed to purchasth',- and, while 'on the siding awaiting transPortation, wa g attaehed by APpellant, a creditor of 'Jones. Ap-pellee interVened, Setting up his' rights, and it Was agreed that the ear bo delivered, the proceeds placed . in ;hank pending a determination of the : rights of the parties. The amount due appellee for log's exceeds theProceedS of the sale of the second car, and approximately All the proceeds of the first car was required to pay the labor and repair the mill. Appellant's centention:is that the lien of his attachment is superior to appellee's lien , for the purchase money of the logs. We-cannot agree With thiS contention. The only equity Jones had in the lumber was the excess over the cost of the logs and the labor for manufacturing them. As we have already stated, there was no excess. The proceeds of the sale, after deducting $50 advanced to Jones by the purchaser, were insufficient to pay appellee for the logs. Appellant's debtor,. Jimes, therefore had, no inter-
est in the' second car which ,could be attached by, appellant., , The undisputed evidence is that appellee agreed to furnish the logs to manufacture the lumber, and that it was to , be inspected; by the purchaser-and the logs paid - tor befdre the lumber left DeS Arc. - The court should have directed a verdict in appellee's favOr, aS there ,was no queStiOn of " fad to submit to the jury. And it can make no difference that the first car was shipped without paying appellee. This Makes it mineeeSsar , y to 'didcUss -the eriOrs assigned in the giving -and 'refusing to giVe certain instructions. Affirmed.
You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.