Denton v. Young
Decision Date | 10 July 1922 |
Docket Number | 122 |
Citation | 242 S.W. 801,154 Ark. 538 |
Parties | DENTON v. YOUNG |
Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Appeal from Fulton Circuit Court; Archie F. House, judge on exchange; affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
C E. Elmore and Oscar E. Ellis, for appellants.
The judgment in the ejectment suit which was pleaded as a bar by appellee in his motion to dismiss the cross-complaint herein and which was held by the court to constitute a bar, could not be a defense to the cross-com-plaint. 33 Ark. 801; 2 Ark 578; 7 Ark. 502.
The former ruling of this court (145 Ark. 147), reversing the case with directions to reinstate the answer and cross-complaint, is the law of this case. Appellee should have pleaded the judgment in the ejectment suit as a defense to the cross-complaint on the former trial, and not having done so, he is estopped. 122 Ark. 491.
J. M. Burrow and John H. Caldwell, for appellees.
The judgment in the ejectment suit, from which appellants took no appeal, is a bar to the present suit, since the same issues were therein adjudicated. 65 Ark. 469; 57 Ark. 500; 55 Ark. 292; 66 Ark. 336. Since appellants cannot dispute appellees' right of possession under this judgment, they cannot maintain the present suit under sec. 4854, C. & M. Digest; 128 Ark. 277. Although the judgment in the ejectment suit was rendered after appellants filed their cross-complaint in the present action, still this does not prevent its being a bar. 76 Ark. 423; 55 Ark. 633. The judgment in the ejectment suit settled the issues in this.
This is the second appeal in this case. See Denton v. Young, 145 Ark. 147, 223 S.W. 380. We refer to that opinion for a statement of the issues set forth in the pleadings. Concluding the opinion in that case, we said:
Upon remand of the cause the appellee, Jas. R. Young, filed a motion to dismiss the cross-complaint, in which he set up that Ross Denton and Mrs. Ross Denton, the cross-complainants, obtained permission of Jas. R. Young, as administrator of the Harrison estate, to enter upon and take possession of the premises described in their cross-complaint, and thereby became tenants at will of the said Young, but later refused to surrender and vacate the premises when Young demanded them to do so, and wrongfully and unlawfully held the same against said Young, who, as such administrator, on July 17, 1919, instituted a suit in ejectment against these cross-plain-tiffs. They attached to their motion a copy of the complaint in ejectment and the answer and cross-complaint of the Dentons thereto, in which they set up that they had the lawful right and legal possession of the premises. The motion then alleged that Young and Niles filed a supplementary or amended complaint asking for a writ of possession, which writ was issued and executed on the 29th of September, 1919. The motion then alleged that the question of whether Mr. and Mrs. Denton were rightfully or wrongfully in possession of the premises, together with other questions, were raised in that suit, and that, upon a final hearing of the same, the circuit court, at its February term, 1920, adjudged that the Dentons were in unlawful possession of the property and rendered against them a judgment of ouster. The motion then, by way of explanation, recites the history of the litigation in the present action of unlawful detainer as is...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Buck v. Mueller
...Hill, supra; cf. Jacobs v. Jacobs, 1919, 92 Or. 255, 180 P. 515. Contra: Sobey v. Beiler, 1869, 28 Iowa 323; But cf., Denton v. Young, 1922, 154 Ark. 538, 242 S.W. 801. We reluctantly reach the conclusion that plaintiff is not estopped by the previous judgment. We do so reluctantly because ......
- Carpenter v. State Bank of Siloam Springs
-
Krasner v. Reed
... ... but it appears in substance to be a sworn plea of estoppel by ... judgment or a plea of res judicata. Denton et al. v ... Young, 154 Ark. 538, 242 S.W. 801 ... No ... attack of any kind was made against the sufficiency of the ... allegations ... ...