Cline v. Cline
| Decision Date | 11 December 1911 |
| Citation | 142 S.W. 167,101 Ark. 250 |
| Parties | CLINE v. CLINE |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Appeal from Pope Circuit Court; Hugh Basham, Judge; affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
Brooks Hays & Martin, for appellant.
Justices of the peace have no jurisdiction of cases where the title to or right of possession of land is involved. Art. 7, § 40, Const. 1874; 7 Ark. 305; 81 Ark. 192.
J. T Bullock, for appellee.
The suit is not by a landlord to recover rents from a tenant, but an action in replevin against one who has taken possession of a crop from a tenant, claiming ownership of same as the tenant's landlord. The mere introduction of a deed or a lease contract in order to establish some collateral fact does not involve the title to the lands. The question of title to lands must be directly and necessarily involved in order to oust the jurisdiction of the justice of the peace. 48 Mich. 175; 24 Cyc. 451, 452, notes; 54 Ark. 16; 37 Ark 120, 122; 38 Ark. 200; 59 Ark. 330. Growing and standing crops are subject to replevin. 34 Cyc. 1367; 75 Ark. 336.
On the 22d day of February, 1889, J. D. M. Cline died intestate, owning a certain tract of land in Pope County, Arkansas, which was his homestead. He left surviving him Mrs. E. T. Cline, his widow, J. W. Cline, his son by a former wife, and several minor children.
On the 30th day of October, 1899, Mrs. E. T. Cline and J. W. Cline entered into a written contract by which the former leased to the latter for her lifetime her interest in said homestead, and in consideration therefor J. W. Cline agreed to pay the taxes each year and the sum of $ 30 per annum as rent. J. W. Cline took possession of the land under the contract and held possession thereof until the beginning of the year 1910, at which time he and Mrs. E. T. Cline entered into an oral agreement, whereby he agreed to let her take the land back for the crop season of 1910 if she would release him from his part of the written contract for said year. Subsequent to the oral agreement, Mrs. E. T. Cline rented said land to W. H. McKinney for the year 1910. He took possession as her tenant for said year, and agreed to pay her as rent thereof one-fourth of the cotton and one-third of the corn. It was agreed between them that McKinney should leave her part of the crop in the field. He gathered his part of the crop in the fall of 1910, and left her part in the field as agreed upon.
J. W. Cline then entered the land and took possession of the crop left in the field. Mrs. E. T. Cline brought suit against him in the justice's court to recover possession of the crop. She recovered judgment there, and J. W. Cline appealed to the circuit court. The case was tried anew in the circuit court on the facts stated above, and on the written contract of the lease introduced by the defendant. The court directed a verdict for the plaintiff, and the defendant has appealed.
Counsel for the defendant insist that the judgment should be reversed, because the title to the land was involved and the justice...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Arkansas
-
Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Freeman
...498. But this is a defense which was not raised in the lower court, and appellant will not be permitted to raise it here. 88 Ark. 189; 101 Ark. 250; 103 Ark. 2. If either the message of the 26th or of the 27th had been delivered in reasonable time appellant could have seen her sister's rema......
-
Short v. Kennedy
... ... The ... lease contract was not an issue in the case, and the title to ... the land was not involved." Cline v ... Cline, 101 Ark. 250, 142 S.W. 167; Matthews ... v. Morris, 31 Ark. 222; Nolen v ... Royston, 36 Ark. 561; Bramble v ... Beidler, 38 Ark ... ...
- Van Hook v. McNeil Monument Company