Field v. Morris
Decision Date | 30 May 1910 |
Citation | 129 S.W. 543,95 Ark. 268 |
Parties | FIELD v. MORRIS |
Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Appeal from Lawrence Circuit Court; Charles Coffin, Judge; affirmed.
STATEMENT BY THE COURT.
In February, 1892, John Darter and his wife (the latter relinquishing dower) conveyed a tract of land in Lawrence County, Arkansas, to W. A. Townsend. The grantors made the following reservation: "Reserving to ourselves the use of one and one-half acres free of rent where the mill and gin stands in southwest corner of said tract, with the privilege of removing buildings and machinery therefrom, * * * and we are to have the use of one and one-half acres free of rent as long as we or others holding under us may want to use same for running machinery at said point."
The grantee, W. A. Townsend and his wife, conveyed the land to H W. Townsend with the same reservation, and the latter on the 3d day of October, 1901, conveyed three acres of the same land in the southwest corner thereof to B. W. Field, and the deed to Field contained the same reservation as to the use of the one and a half acres. On the 28th of November, 1902, B W. Field conveyed the three acres to his wife without the reservation. On the 25th of September, 1903, Mrs. Field and B. W. Field conveyed the same land to Carrie E. Stevenson and she reconveyed it on the 2d day of October, 1903, to Laura C. Field.
On the 28th day of September, 1903, John Darter conveyed to J. W Morris by deed as follows:
Morris took possession of the one and a half acres, and this suit was instituted by appellant against him for the land and damages. The cause came here on appeal (Field v. Morris, 88 Ark. 148), and we held that the reservation in the deed of Darter was personal, and died with him. The cause was reversed and remanded for new trial. There was a motion for reconsideration, and in passing on this we said: On the second hearing the appellant by amended complaint alleged that appellee had without her consent and against her protest erected in 1903 the houses and machinery on the one and a half acres of land, that she was the owner of the land and buildings and machinery thereon, and was entitled to rent during the time appellee had occupied same. She prayed judgment on this account in the sum of $ 1,500. The appellee in an amended answer set up the following:
This pleading, which is designated by counsel as an amended answer, was really a cross complaint also against appellant for the improvements on the land. Appellant answered this cross complaint, denying that appellee placed certain machinery and buildings on the land under and by virtue of the two conveyances set up by him, and denying that the buildings and machinery were placed on the land while appellee was in possession and holding under color of title. On the issue as thus made the cause was submitted to the jury.
Appellee introduced his deed from Darter set out above and the following instrument: "I, C. Davis, do hereby grant, bargain and sell all my right, title and interest in all my machinery, mill, gin, and all things belonging thereto to J. W. Morris, to have and to hold the same unto the said J. W. Morris, for which I am paid in full.
(Signed) "."
Davis testified that he bought the machinery, etc., mentioned in the above instrument from John Darter and the right to enter upon the ground and to erect and use other machinery which he placed on the ground after getting possession; that Berry Field knew, at the time that the machinery was being erected there, that witness sold all to Morris and put him in possession the same as witness had gone into possession under Darter.
One witness testified: That the machinery was not fastened to the house; that the boiler and engine were not enclosed in brick and mortar; that they were covered with dirt; that the engine bed was not permanent; that it was just set on stones that were laid on the ground; that the building could be taken and put on rollers and rolled away.
Berry Field testified that Dr. Morris went into possession of the land in controversy under him and with his consent; that he helped to haul the machinery and other materials and put it on this ground, and at that time he was the owner of the land.
J. W. Morris, the appellee, testified:
The jury returned the following verdict: "We, the jury, find for the defendant for the removal of the machinery and buildings and for the plaintiff in the sum of $ 210 with six per cent. interest."
Thereupon judgment was rendered August 27, 1909, in favor of Laura C. Field against J. W. Morris for $ 241.50, "and that the defendant be allowed 30 days in which to remove his house and machinery from the 1 1/2 acres of land belonging to Laura C. Field."
The appellant appealed "from so much of the judgment herein as allows the defendant to move this house and machinery from this land.
Judgment affirmed.
Geo. Dent, for appellant.
A bond for title is not color of title. 47 Ark. 528; 18 How. 56; 67 Ark. 188. Carelessness is not to be rewarded by the bestowal of the benefits under the betterment act. 59 Ark. 145. The grantee of a way is limited to use his way for the purposes specified in his grant. Wash. on Easements, §§ 183 and 186. A reservation of a way ceases on the destruction of the property. 138 Ind. 200; 46 Am. St. R. 376; 84 Hun 158. There is no right of removal. 29 Wis. 655; 5 Blackf. 556; 36 Am. Dec. 556; 2 Greenl. 542; 52 Wis. 554. A purchaser of land must take notice of his title. 66 Miss. 21; 14 Am. St. R. 538. The property sought to be removed passed to the purchaser of the land. 65 Ark. 26.
H. L. Ponder, for appellee.
A person making improvements will be presumed to have acted in good faith. 61 Am. Dec. 73; 1 Sawy. 15. Notice of an adverse claim does not necessarily...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Bache, Recvr. v. Central Coal & Coke Company
... ... Kimball, 56 Ark. 55; ... Bemis v. First National Bank, 63 Ark. 625, ... 40 S.W. 127; Ozark v. Adams, 73 Ark. 227, ... 83 S.W. 920; Field v. Morris, 95 Ark. 268, ... 129 S.W. 543; Shellar v. Shivers, 171 Pa ... 569, 33 A. 95; Washington Gas Light Co. v ... District of Columbia, 161 ... ...
- Pulaski Heights Sewerage Co. v. Loughborough
-
St. Louis-San Francisco Railway Co. v. White
... ... 1055; Cranor v. Lake Erie, ... etc., R. Co., 83 Ind.App. 449, 149 N.E. 97. On the ... question whether fixtures may be removed, see Field ... v. Morris, 95 Ark. 268, 129 S.W. 543; ... Barnes v. Jeffus, 173 Ark. 100, 291 S.W ... 990; Choate v. Kimball, 56 Ark. 55, 19 S.W ... 108; ... ...
-
In re Hot Shots Burgers & Fries, Inc., Bankruptcy No. 91-41298M.
...of Rector, 265 Ark. 68, 576 S.W.2d 949, 954 (1979)). Accord Barnes v. Jeffus, 173 Ark. 100, 291 S.W. 990, 991 (1927); Field v. Morris, 95 Ark. 268, 129 S.W. 543, 545 (1910). The intention of the party making the annexation will generally control. Field v. Morris, 129 S.W. at 545. Courts app......