Claxton v. Kay & Northcutt

• Decision Date: 01 January 1912
• Citation: 142 S.W. 517
• Parties: CLAXTON v. KAY & NORTHCUTT.
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

142 S.W. 517

CLAXTON v. KAY & NORTHCUTT.

Supreme Court of Arkansas.

January 1, 1912.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Fulton County; John W. Meeks, Judge.

Action by B. F. Claxton against Kay & Northcutt. From a judgment sustaining a demurrer to the complaint, plaintiff appeals. Reversed and remanded, with directions.

J. M. Burrow, for appellant. Terry, Downie & Streepey, for appellee.

FRAUENTHAL, J.

This was a suit brought by B. F. Claxton, the plaintiff below, to recover a reward to which he claimed he was entitled, and which had been paid to the defendants. In the complaint it was in substance alleged that in 1909 one John Whitson was assassinated in Fulton county, and there was a great desire upon the part of the people of the county to bring to justice the perpetrators of the crime, who were at that time unknown. The county court of said county thereupon appropriated and set apart the sum of $500 as a reward, to be paid for the arrest and conviction of the murderers. It was further alleged that the plaintiff then went to work to ferret out the perpetrators of the crime, and finally discovered witnesses and evidence which led to the apprehension and conviction of Roy and Anderson Turner as the murderers; and in effect it was alleged that the plaintiff had fully complied with the terms and conditions of said offer of reward and was entitled to same. It was further alleged that the defendants were employed to and did prosecute said murderers of Whitson, and did use the witnesses and evidence obtained and furnished by the plaintiff in said prosecution, which resulted in their conviction of said crime; that the defendants thereupon wrongfully and without right applied to the county court of said county for said reward, and received payment thereof; and in effect it was alleged that the defendants had without right received the reward to which plaintiff was rightfully entitled. By this action the plaintiff sought to recover judgment against the defendants for the amount of said reward, which they had received. A demurrer was interposed to the complaint upon the ground that it did not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. This demurrer was sustained, and, the plaintiff refusing to plead further, the cause was dismissed.

In passing upon the question as to whether or not error was committed in sustaining a general demurrer to the complaint, it is the rule that, if the facts stated with every inference reasonably deducible therefrom constitute a cause of action, then the demurrer should be overruled. Cox v. Smith, 93 Ark. 371, 125 S. W. 437, 137 Am. St. Rep. 89.

Viewed in this way, the complaint in effect alleged that a reward was offered by a public agency for the arrest and conviction of the perpetrators of a public crime. Moved by this cause, the plaintiff performed the service in seeking for evidence and witnesses who had knowledge of facts that would...