Barfield Mercantile Co. v. Connery

Decision Date14 November 1921
Docket Number226
Citation234 S.W. 481,150 Ark. 428
PartiesBARFIELD MERCANTILE COMPANY v. CONNERY
CourtArkansas Supreme Court

Appeal from Mississippi Circuit Court, Chickasawba District; R. H Dudley, Judge; reversed.

Judgment reversed and cause remanded.

C. A Cunningham and Little, Buck & Lasley, for appellants.

The title passed when the deed was delivered. The presumption is that a deed is delivered the date of its execution. 61 Ark 104. The deeds, being absolute on their face and containing no reservation, transferred the rent with the reversion, and such rights as appellee had before conveyance. 10 Ark. 9.

The fee simple title to land carries with it the right to its absolute dominion. 92 Ark. 315.

Where land is rented and the reversion is transferred by the lessor, the right to the rent thereafter to become due is no longer vested in him. Tiffany, Landlord & Tenant, par. 180.

The court erred in permitting the testimony of appellee over the objections of appellant, as to the reservation of the rent. 10 Ark. 9.

Gravette & Rayner, for appellee.

It matters not how the money came into the possession of the party who has it, if the plaintiff is entitled to it. Elliott on Contracts, Sec. 1372; 56 Am. St. Rep. 587; 110 P. 46; 30 L. R. A. (N. S.) 807; 7 Colo.App. 528; 44 P. 380; 65 Ark. 222; 110 Ark. 578; 163 S.W. 795; 215 S.W. 694.

OPINION

MCCULLOCH, C. J.

Appellee was the plaintiff below in this action to recover rents on lands alleged to be due for the year 1918 under a written contract. The case was tried before the court on an agreed statement of facts. The farm which constituted the subject-matter of the lease contract was owned by appellee and others as tenants in common. Appellee owned an undivided 1-6 thereof; D. H. Wilhite and W. O. Anthony owned an undivided 1/2 thereof, and two other persons, whose names are not disclosed in this record, owned the other 2/6 interest. Appellant leased the land from the owners for a period of 5 years ending December 31, 1919, under written contract stipulating that the rents should be payable annually on November 15, and the amount sued for by appellee is the amount stipulated to be paid her in the contract for her interest. This suit is, as before stated, one to recover the rent for the year 1918. In the spring of that year, appellant made an absolute assignment of the lease to Wilhite and Anthony, they paying to appellant the sum of $ 500 as consideration for the assignment and as purchase price for a lot of corn, and they "succeeded to the rights and assumed the liabilities of the Barfield Mercantile Company under its lease contract covering said land." On October 12, 1918, appellee sold, and conveyed by warranty deed without reservation, her said interest in the tract of land to S. E. Simonson, and on November 12, 1918, Simonson conveyed that interest by warranty deed without reservation to Wilhite and Anthony. These deeds were placed of record on December 8, 1918, and by the purchase Wilhite and Anthony became the owners of the whole of the land except an undivided 2/6 owned by persons not involved in this litigation.

Appellee was allowed to prove, over the objections of appellant, that in the sale by appellee of her interest in the land to Simonson there was an oral agreement that the rents for the year 1918 should be reserved to appellee.

The trial court made a finding of fact to the effect that the sum of $ 500 paid by Wilhite and Anthony to appellant for the lease included the rents due appellee for that year, and that in this manner "Wilhite and Anthony paid the defendant the sum of $ 146 for the use and benefit of plaintiff independent of the purchase of the land." Counsel for appellee defend the judgment on this finding of fact, and contend that appellee is entitled to recover on the ground that the rent money was paid over to appellant for the benefit of appellee and accepted by appellant for her benefit. This finding by the court, however, is not only without evidence to support it, but it is contrary to the affirmative evidence on this subject. The only testimony on that subject is that of Anthony, incorporated in the agreed statement of facts, wherein he testified that Wilhite and Anthony "paid the Barfield Mercantile Company $ 500 for its contract on said land, and for some corn," and that "by said transaction the said Wilhite and...

To continue reading

Request your trial
13 cases
  • Arkmo Lumber Company v. Cantrell
    • United States
    • Arkansas Supreme Court
    • June 18, 1923
    ... ... Wilkins, 31 Ark. 411; Gates & Bro. v. Steele, 48 Ark. 539, 4 S.W. 53; ... Barfield Mercantile Co. v. Connery, 150 ... Ark. 428, 234 S.W. 481. In addition see Allen v ... ...
  • Batson v. Drummond
    • United States
    • Arkansas Supreme Court
    • March 26, 1923
    ... ... on Contracts, sec. 1620; Morris v. S. W ... Supply Co., 136 Ark. 507, 206 S.W. 894; Barfield ... Mercantile Co. v. Connery, 150 Ark 428, 234 ... S.W. 481; Sims v. Best, 140 Ark. 384, 215 ... ...
  • Hogan v. Richardson
    • United States
    • Arkansas Supreme Court
    • December 8, 1924
    ...dollars in three days; but such evidence was not competent, since its effect was to vary the terms of the written contract. 142 Ark. 234; 150 Ark. 428; 140 Ark. 10 R. C. L., §§ 208, 209; 203 Mass. 122, 89 N.E. 189. 2. Appellees cannot seriously urge, on appeal, the want of mutuality in the ......
  • Nelson v. Forbes & Sons
    • United States
    • Arkansas Supreme Court
    • May 26, 1924
    ... ... rent. The deed contained no reservation of the rents, and we ... said in the case of Barfield Mercantile Co. v ... Connery, 150 Ark. 428, 234 S.W. 481: "It is ... well settled, that a deed ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT