Dillon v. Hawkins
| Decision Date | 10 January 1921 |
| Docket Number | 88 |
| Citation | 227 S.W. 758,147 Ark. 1 |
| Parties | DILLON v. HAWKINS |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Appeal from Poinsett Circuit Court, First District; R. H. Dudley Judge; affirmed.
Judgment affirmed. Judgment reversed.
J. F Gautney, for appellant.
1. The verdict is so excessive as to show it was the result of passion, prejudice, recklessness or mistake. 9 Ark. 405; 25 Id. 49; 26 Id. 309; 39 Id. 511; 21 S.W. 36; 92 Ark. 345; 102 Id. 603.
2. It was error to give instruction No. 1, stating that the evidence was undisputed, etc. 93 Ark. 277.
3. The court erred in overruling the motion for new trial. The evidence on behalf of Dillon on the motion was not disputed by Seeley. A complete defense was offered and not denied. The trial court having found that the verdict was excessive should have set it aside in its entirety. 96 Ark. 379, 383; 126 Id. 427.
4. Dillon offered a complete defense to every item set up in the cross-complaint.
5. Dillon exercised due diligence.
Mardis & Mardis, for appellees.
1. The verdict is not so excessive as to show passion or prejudice etc. The evidence showed that defendants were entitled to damages in the sum of $ 27,481. It was in strict conformity with the law and the evidence. 102 Ark. 603.
2. There was no error in giving instruction No. 1. The evidence was undisputed, and no objection was made to it. 131 Ark. 121; 135 Id. 602.
3. The trial court had the right to reduce the judgment without setting it aside in its entirety. 107 Ark. 422; 133 Id. 223.
The appellant instituted this suit in March, 1920, in the Poinsett Circuit Court against the appellees. He alleged that he sold and delivered to the appellees one California Heavy Style Rig with drill stems for the sum of $ 22,000, $ 10,000 of which was paid in cash and the balance evidenced by three promissory notes of $ 4,000 each, payable in thirty, sixty, and ninety days, which notes were past due and unpaid. The appellees answered on May 10, 1920, and denied all material allegations of the complaint. They filed a counterclaim in which they alleged that at the time they purchased the drilling outfit from the appellant they had a contract to drill an oil well in the State of Louisiana; that appellant failed to deliver the machinery according to contract, which caused the appellees to forfeit their contract in Louisiana to their damage in the sum of $ 10,000; that they were damaged in the further sum of $ 981 for freight and demurrage and a further damage of $ 500 on account of having to remove the machinery from Shreveport, Louisiana, to Harrisburg, Arkansas; that one of the appellees, Seeley, since the purchase, in order to put the rig in condition for use in drilling, had purchased additional machinery in the sum of $ 6,000 and that it would require the expenditure of $ 6,500 more to make the rig complete as per contract. The record shows that on May 10, 1920, by special request the court set the cause for a hearing on May 14th. On the latter date the cause was called for trial. After the jury was impaneled, one of the counsel for the plaintiff below, appellant here, announced that he desired to take a nonsuit. The court thereupon informed counsel that the defendants below, appellees here, had filed an answer and cross-complaint in which they were asking for affirmative relief against the plaintiff, and that his action in dismissing the complaint would not interfere with defendants' right to prosecute their cross-complaint. The court further informed counsel for the plaintiff that he would be given time to file a reply to the cross-complaint and prepare for trial. Counsel for plaintiff thereupon announced that there was no service on the plaintiff (defendant in the cross-complaint), and that they would not do anything to enter plaintiff's appearance. Thereupon, counsel for the defendants, cross-complainants, announced that they were ready to offer evidence on the counterclaim set up in the cross-complaint, which was done.
It is unnecessary to set forth, in detail, the testimony tending to prove the damages alleged in the cross-complaint. The testimony established the contract of sale as set up in the complaint and tended to show that, on account of the failure of appellant to deliver the drilling outfit as per the terms of the contract, the appellees were damaged in the sum of $ 10,000 in the loss of profits on a certain contract to drill an oil well in Louisiana, and that on account of the delay appellees were required to pay a demurrage of $ 981 and additional freight bill of $ 500; that there was a difference of $ 16,000 between the drilling outfit which they had purchased of the appellant and the outfit which was delivered to them under their purchase from the appellant. In other words, the drilling outfit that they actually got was of the value of about $ 6,000.
No exceptions were saved on the trial of the cross-complaint to any of the rulings of the court in admitting evidence or in giving instructions. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the appellees in the sum of $ 27,481.
The appellant filed a motion for a new trial containing various assignments of error and among them that the verdict of the jury was contrary to the law and the evidence. These are the only assignments that we can consider, for there were no objections or exceptions during the progress of the trial to the rulings of the court which were assigned as error in the motion for a new trial. After hearing the evidence that was adduced on motion for a new trial, the court required a remittitur to be entered in the sum of $ 10,500, which was entered by the appellees. Thereupon, the court overruled the motion for a new trial and entered a judgment in favor of the appellees in the sum of $ 16,981, from which is this appeal.
Under section 6231 of Kirby's Digest, the appellees had the right to proceed to the trial of their counterclaim, although appellant had taken a nonsuit on the notes. The record shows that the court expressly advised appellant that he had the right to file a reply or answer to the counterclaim of appellees and offered to give appellant time to do so and to prepare for a trial on the counterclaim. But the appellant announced that he did not care to file any further pleadings; that there was no service on the appellant, and that he did not wish to do anything to enter his appearance. It appears, therefore, that counsel for appellant misapprehended the law and allowed the trial on the counterclaim to proceed as...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Moore v. Ziba Bennitt & Co.
-
Lemon v. Laws, 91-56
...even though the plaintiff has dismissed his original claim. A claim voluntarily dismissed is of no further effect. Dillon v. Hawkins, 147 Ark. 1, 227 S.W. 758 (1921). Thus, voluntary dismissal of the plaintiff's original claim does not affect, but leaves for adjudication, the defendant's co......
-
Watts v. Watts
... ... his counterclaim or cross-complaint, and he may demand a ... trial on his counterclaim or cross-complaint." 18 C. J ... 1160; Dillon v. Hawkins, 147 Ark. 1, 227 ... S.W. 758; Wiegel v. Road Imp. Dist. No. 1, ... Prairie County, 126 Ark. 31, 189 S.W. 178 ... It ... ...
-
Zurich General Accident & Liability Ins. Co., Ltd. v. Smith
...v. Watts, 179 Ark. 367, 15 S.W.2d 977. And the only issue before the court after non-suit taken is that in the cross-complaint. Dillon v. Hawkins, supra. also contends we should take judicial notice of the rates for compensation insurance under the provisions of § 36 (e) (2) of the Workmen'......