Bridges v. Haney

• Decision Date: 28 January 1918
• Docket Number: 112
• Citation: 200 S.W. 788,132 Ark. 166
• Parties: BRIDGES (HANEY) v. HANEY
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

200 S.W. 788

132 Ark. 166

BRIDGES (HANEY) v. HANEY

No. 112

Supreme Court of Arkansas

January 28, 1918

Appeal from Lawrence Circuit Court, Eastern District; Dene H Coleman, Judge; affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

W. E Beloate, for appellant.

1. The question of ownership was one of fact for the jury. If Fender was to collect and credit upon a debt due by appellant to him, he would be a mere agent and the suit was properly brought in her name. Bliss on Code Pl., §§ 56-8. Mrs. Haney was the only proper plaintiff and entitled to relief. 48 Ark. 355. Fender had a mortgage on the land. He should have been made a party. 74 Ark. 54; 49 Id 100.

2. Instructions 4 and 5 are inconsistent. Pearl Haney's intervention should have gone to the jury. 49 Ark. 100.

W. P Smith and G. M. Gibson, for appellee.

1. The court properly refused to make Fender a party. Pearl Haney had no interest in the cotton, and was not the proper party plaintiff. Kirby's Digest, § 5999; 5 Ark. 93; 39 Id. 172; 36 Id. 561; 48 Id. 355; 92 Id. 215. Fender took no appeal and is not now complaining. He was not a necessary party. 49 Ark. 100.

2. The assignment of the interest of the landlord in a crop does not carry the lien. 31 Ark. 597; 36 Id. 561.

3. There is no inconsistency in instructions 4 and 5. Pearl Haney had no interest in the rent. She should have asked a specific instruction if she had any rights. 78 Ark. 100; 102 Id. 588; 104 Id. 322.

4. There is no error in the instructions and the verdict is supported by the evidence.

STATEMENT OF FACTS.

These are companion cases and resulted from the same transaction. The same statement of facts will be necessary to determine the issues in the appeal in each case and one opinion will suffice.

Pearl Haney owned a farm in Randolph County, Arkansas, and Rufe Johnson made a crop of corn and cotton on it on the shares. B. H. Haney, a brother of the husband of Pearl Haney, claiming to have purchased an interest in the crop, gathered a part of the cotton and disposed of it to D. Bloom, a ginner. No. 5021 is a replevin suit instituted by Pearl Haney against Rufe Johnson to obtain possession of the cotton disposed of by B. H. Haney, or in lieu thereof to obtain judgment for its value. B. H. Haney filed an interplea, in which he claimed the cotton by purchase from Pearl Haney. The case was commenced in the circuit court and was tried before a jury. B. H. Haney and other witnesses for him testified to a state of facts which established his claim to the cotton. Their testimony was the same as in case No. 5022, and will be stated more in detail later.

Pearl Haney testified that she had given her father an equitable mortgage on the rents. It does not appear that this mortgage was ever reduced to writing and filed for record. Her father, D. W. Fender, corroborated her testimony in this respect. Pearl Haney, also, denied that she had sold the cotton to B. H. Haney. Fender admitted that he directed the suit to be brought in his daughter's name. At the conclusion of the testimony Fender asked to be permitted to intervene and claim the cotton as his own. The court refused to grant him permission to file his intervention, and Pearl Haney, the plaintiff in the case, excepted to the ruling of the court and in her motion for a new trial assigned as error the action of the court in refusing to allow Fender to file his intervention.

In No. 5022, B. H. Haney sued D. Bloom and the Lawrence County Bank on a check given him by Bloom on the bank. The facts in this case are that B. H. Haney, claiming to have purchased it from Pearl Haney and her husband, gathered some cotton grown by Rufe Johnson on the farm of Pearl Haney and sold it to D. Bloom, a ginner, for the sum of $ 79.65, and Bloom gave him a check on the Lawrence County Bank for that sum. Haney cashed the check at the Pocahontas State Bank, and in due course the check was presented to the Lawrence County Bank for payment. In the meantime Pearl Haney had notified Bloom that she claimed the cotton and Bloom in turn notified the bank not to pay the check. Bloom had at the time sufficient funds in the bank for the payment of the check. The bank refused payment as requested by Bloom and Pearl Haney. The check was protested for nonpayment. The protest fees amounted to $ 4.75. After the Lawrence County Bank refused to cash the check, B. H. Haney redeemed it from Pocahontas State Bank. Bloom and the Lawrence County Bank filed a motion in the justice court setting up these facts and asking that Pearl Haney be made a party defendant. The court granted their request, and she entered her appearance to the action. The court, after hearing the evidence introduced by the plaintiff (there being none introduced by the defendants), rendered judgment in favor of the plaintiff for the amount of the check and the protest fees. Pearl Haney appealed to the circuit court. There her father, D. W. Fender, filed an intervention, in which he stated that he was the equitable owner of the cotton and entitled to the proceeds thereof, and especially the check which was the subject-matter of the suit. He alleged that the check was the proceeds of cotton raised on the land of Pearl Haney, and that the cotton had been mortgaged to him to secure a certain indebtedness and that his mortgage included the rents on the land.

On the trial of the case B. H. Haney testified that Rufe Johnson made a share crop on the land of Pearl Haney and that the cotton in question was a part of that crop; that he purchased from Pearl Haney and her husband her interest in the crop before it was gathered and gave them therefor a pair of horses; that he paid full value for the crop at the time and believed he was getting a good title thereto. Other witnesses testified that Pearl Haney admitted to them after the sale that she and her husband had sold her interest in the crop to B. H. Haney for the horses. B. H. Haney gathered a part of the cotton and sold it to D. Bloom for $ 79.65, which was its full value.

Pearl Haney testified that she had no interest in the crop; that she had mortgaged her rents to her father for a debt due him, and that the rents belonged to him; that the mortgage was not reduced to writing. Her testimony was corroborated by that of her father. She also denied that she had sold the cotton to B. H. Haney. She stated that her husband sold her interest in the crop to Haney without her knowledge and consent and that he had no authority to do so. In a short time thereafter she and her husband separated.

In case No. 5021 the court told the jury that the undisputed evidence showed that the cotton did not belong to the plaintiff, Pearl Haney, and instructed it to return a verdict for B. H. Haney for possession of the cotton.

In case No. 5022 the court, after giving a short history of the case to the jury said that practically the only question for the jury to determine from the evidence in the case was whether or not at the time the check was given the plaintiff, B. H. Haney, was the owner of the cotton or whether D. W. Fender was the owner thereof and entitled to the money called for by the check. The court further told the jury that the burden of proof was upon B. H. Haney to show that he was the owner of the cotton for which the instruction was given. The court also gave to the jury instructions Nos. 4 and 5. The instructions are as follows:

"4. If you find from the evidence from a preponderance or greater weight of the evidence that it was Haney's crop, why, he would be entitled to judgment at your hands for the amount...