Dover v. Henderson
Decision Date | 06 March 1939 |
Docket Number | 4-5402 |
Citation | 125 S.W.2d 798,197 Ark. 971 |
Parties | DOVER v. HENDERSON |
Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Appeal from Polk Circuit Court; Minor Milwee, Judge; affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
J F. Quillin, for appellant.
Gordon B. Carlton, for appellee.
On February 3, 1937, appellees filed suit for unlawful detainer in the Polk circuit court against appellant, L. M. Dover, and for possession of three lots in the town of Hatfield, which they claimed to own, and for rents. Appellant filed answer and after issues joined the cause was submitted to the court and on April 27, 1937, judgment was rendered in favor of appellees, awarding them possession of the property, but held that no sufficient showing was made to entitle them to rents. From this judgment, appellant Dover, in apt time, perfected his appeal to this court, and on the 3rd day of May, 1937 executed a supersedeas bond, with himself as principal and Ober Rowe, D. O. Dover and Dr. C. A. Campbell as sureties. His appeal was prosecuted to this court and the judgment of the trial court was affirmed on November 22, 1937, and is reported in 195 Ark. 496.
Upon the return and filing of a mandate with the clerk of the Polk circuit court, appellees filed a motion in the Polk circuit court for a summary judgment against appellants, Dover as principal and Ober Rowe, D. O. Dover and Dr. C. A. Campbell, as sureties on the supersedeas bond, for rents on the property in question, in the sum of $ 324.70, which had accumulated during the appeal to this court, covering the time appellees had been deprived of the possession and use of said property, pending said appeal, from April 27, 1937, to February 25, 1938.
Appellants filed their joint response to the motion denying the right of appellees to recover for rents and damages, and pleading as a complete bar to the action, on the bond, both that the bond did not bind appellants for the payment of rents, and that all questions raised in the motion, except that of physical damage to the property, were res adjudicata. They further pleaded that the bond was not in statutory form and offered that as another defense to summary judgment thereon. Upon the petition, response, evidence of witnesses introduced by both appellants and appellees, the original judgment of the trial court and its findings of law and fact in the first trial, the court entered judgment in favor of appellees and against appellants in the sum of $ 324.70 for the rents accruing since the judgment in the original suit rendered on April 27, 1937, up to February 25, 1938, the latter date being the time appellants surrendered possession of the property in question to appellees. From this judgment comes this appeal.
Omitting formal parts, the motion for summary judgment filed by appellees is as follows.
The material portions of the supersedeas bond, copy of which was made a part of this motion as Exhibit "A", are as follows: . . . "Now, L. M. Dover, as principal, and Ober Rowe, D. O. Dover and Dr. C. A. Campbell, as sureties, hereby covenant with the said appellees that the said appellant will pay to the appellees all costs and damages that may be adjudged against the appellant on the appeal, . . . and shall perform the judgment of the court appealed from . . . and all damages to property during the pendency of the appeal of which the appellees are kept out of possession by reason of the appeal."
Appellants in their joint response to this motion allege as follows ...
To continue reading
Request your trial- American State Bank, Charleston, Ark. v. Street Imp. Dist. No. 3
- Washington v. Washington
-
Cason v. Leverette
...the holding in Coley v. Westbrook, 208 Ark. 914, 188 S.W.2d 141 (1945), is not applicable. Furthermore, we held in Dover v. Henderson, 197 Ark. 971, 125 S.W.2d 798 (1939), that the liability of a principal and surety on a supersedeas bond in an unlawful detainer action for damages subsequen......
- Davis v. Burford