Brunson v. Little Rock Road Machinery Co.

• Decision Date: 10 January 1972
• Docket Number: No. 5--5695,5--5695
• Citation: 251 Ark. 721,474 S.W.2d 672
• Parties: Claude M. BRUNSON et al., Appellants, v. LITTLE ROCK ROAD MACHINERY COMPANY et al., Appellees.
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

Page 672

474 S.W.2d 672

251 Ark. 721

Claude M. BRUNSON et al., Appellants, v. LITTLE ROCK ROAD MACHINERY COMPANY et al., Appellees.

No. 5--5695.

Supreme Court of Arkansas.

Jan. 10, 1972.

W. G. Wiley, Melbourne, and L. A. Hardin, Little Rock, for appellants.

Owens, McHaney & McHaney, and Chowning, Mitchell, Hamilton & Chowning, and Teague, Bramhall, Davis & Plegge, Little Rock, for appellees.

GEORGE ROSE SMITH, Justice.

This case is unusual in that the chancellor entered judgment for the plaintiff upon the pleadings alone, without hearing any evidence and without resort to our summary judgment procedure. Our rule is that such a judgment should be entered only if the pleadings, construed liberally in favor of the defendants, show on their face that there is no defense to the suit. Reid v. Karoley, 229 Ark. 90, 313 S.W.2d 381 (1958). Here the appellants insist that their counterclaim presented questions of fact that should have been heard in the trial court.

The litigation arises out of the sale of a tractor. In 1969 the plaintiff-appellee, Little Rock Road Machinery Company, sold the tractor to the principal defendant, Claude M. Brunson. Brunson executed a note and conditional sales contract for the unpaid purchase price of $37,816. He and his wife also executed a real estate mortgage as additional security for the debt.

In the early part of 1970 the purchasers defaulted in their monthly payments. On July 24, 1970, the seller filed the present suit, asking for the appointment of a receiver to take possession of the tractor, for judgment for the unpaid purchase price, for the sale of the tractor, and for foreclosure of the real estate mortgage.

Six days later, on July 30, the defendants filed their answer and counterclaim. The answer admitted the allegations of the complaint. The counterclaim asserted that the tractor was defective from the outset, in that it overheated to a dangerous degree whenever it was operated. Despite the seller's assurances that the condition was not dangerous, the tractor was heavily damaged by fire several weeks after the defendants bought it. It took the seller about 60 days to repair the tractor, at a cost of $13,152.25. In that interval the purchaser Brunson was damaged to the extent of $25,000 by reason of not being able to use the tractor in various land-clearing jobs. Later on the defendants amended their counterclaim to assert two additional causes of action: One, that the seller had agreed to pay part of the...