Fleming v. Cooper, 5-790
Decision Date | 05 December 1955 |
Docket Number | No. 5-790,5-790 |
Citation | 284 S.W.2d 857,58 A.L.R.2d 694,225 Ark. 634 |
Parties | , 58 A.L.R.2d 694 Francis W. FLEMING, Appellant, v. Ellis COOPER, Appellee. |
Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Jeff Duty, Claude Duty, Rogers, for appellant.
Lovell & Evans, Springdale, for appellee.
Francis W. Fleming, appellant, is the wife of Joe W. Fleming and has, for the past 15 years, owned a small farm in Washington County. Appellee Cooper in 1939, under an oral lease agreement with Joe W. Fleming, became Fleming's tenant from year to year on a fifty-fifty basis and so continued until January 22, 1952, when he left the premises to avoid eviction by the Sheriff. On August 4, 1952, Cooper sued Joe W. Fleming, as the owner of the leased premises (In Case 12872), for his share of the profits alleged due under his lease. Fleming answered, admitting that Cooper was his tenant, and in a cross complaint alleged, in effect, that under the tenancy agreement, Cooper owed him a substantial amount for expenses incurred in 1949, 1950 and 1951. Cooper filed a reply and also a cross complaint. Upon trial the court, on September 30, 1953, rendered a decree in favor of Cooper. On appeal here that decree was affirmed. Reference is made to that opinion,--Fleming v. Cooper, Ark., 271 S.W.2d 772, for the complete decree which appears embodied therein.
Pending execution on the mandate from this court in the above decree, appellant, wife of Joe W. Fleming, on November 12, 1954 filed the present suit alleging, in effect, that Cooper became her tenant in October 1939 on the same land involved in the first suit above (12872) and continued as her tenant until the close of 1951: that during 1951 and 1952 she spent substantial sums of money on the land, that her husband, Joe W. Fleming, was her manager and that Cooper had orally agreed to pay her the money she had expended; that in November 1951 she and Cooper became involved in a disagreement or controversy as to the correct amounts owed to each party, and as to further occupancy of the real estate, and that she had served notice on him to vacate; that on January 15, 1952 Cooper, through his attorney, proposed an accord and satisfaction based on two letters attached to her complaint, and that she agreed to his proposal. She sought to enforce this accord and satisfaction agreement. She further alleged that Cooper had a judgment against her husband, Joe W. Fleming, in the amount of $828.80, proceeds from the 1952 crop on the above land, which she alleged to be her property, and further prayed for judgment for this amount. Her husband, as garnishee, answered that he had paid this money to his wife, Francis W. Fleming, November 18, 1954 and asked to be discharged. Joe W. Fleming on December 6, 1954, paid into the registry of the court $917.43 which amount he had paid to his wife on November 18, 1954. A demurrer to Francis W. Fleming's complaint was overruled and on February 5, 1955, Cooper filed a combined motion to dismiss and an answer. His answer was a general denial and he specifically pleaded that Francis W. Fleming was barred, in the present suit, by the statute of limitations, and by the former suit (12872) on the ground of res judicata and estoppel.
On a trial the court, February 26, 1955, sustained Cooper's plea of res judicata and estoppel, dismissed appellant's complaint for want of equity, and awarded Cooper $941.10 plus interest and costs. From that decree is this appeal.
Appellant relies on two points: In the decree of February 26, 1955 the trial court found in part--
We agree that the preponderance of the evidence supports the above findings. These two cases covered the same subject matter, the same evidence, and involved, in effect, the same issues sought to be raised in the present suit. The only difference in that Francis W. Fleming, the wife of Joe W. Fleming, was not made a party in the first suit. We are convinced, however, that in that first suit her husband with her knowledge and consent and within the scope of his authority was acting as her agent and manager; that all the while she stood idly by with full knowledge of what was going on, the pendency and progress of the suit, and the final result thereof. In fact, appellant seems to concede that her husband was her agent until the alleged contract of January 19 (based on the letters). She says: 'In this case, the appellant alleged that Joe W. Fleming was her agent during the rental of the farm and in the negotiation of the contract with the appellee, but no where does she allege that he was her agent after the contract of January 19th was entered into.' It appears conclusive that she must have known about the suit because she and her husband had the following Notice to Vacate served on Cooper.
'To Ellis Cooper, Route 2, Springdale, Arkansas.
'/s/ Joe Fleming
'/s/ Francis Whitlow Fleming, Owners.'
In this notice it will be observed that they both claim to be owners of the property involved. It further appears that Francis W. Fleming, following the above notice, called the court reporter several times inquiring about the progress of the suit, and in the circumstances, we hold that she was in privity with him and being his wife was equally bound and concluded by the first suit above. The general and applicable rule is stated in 50 C.J.S., Judgments, § 798, p. 342, 'There is no legal privity between a husband...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Charles Keeshin, Inc. v. Farmers & Merchants Bank of Rogers
...between the same parties, upon the same matter, directly in question in another court." In accord: Fleming v. Cooper, 225 Ark. 634, 284 S.W.2d 857, 58 A.L.R.2d 694 (1955); Carrigan v. Carrigan, 218 Ark. 398, 236 S.W.2d 579 (1951); McCarroll, Comm. of Revenues, v. Farrar, 199 Ark. 320, 134 S......
-
Howard v. Green
...was in substance, although not in form, a party to the chancery court proceedings. See trial transcript at 40 and Fleming v. Cooper, 225 Ark. 634, 284 S.W.2d 857, 860-61 (1955). It is also clear that the chancery court action and the instant suit arose out of the same factual circumstances.......
-
UNITED STATES RUBBER COMPANY v. Pulliam
...quotations set out the Arkansas law with regard to the affirmative defense of accord and satisfaction. In Fleming v. Cooper, 225 Ark. 634, at page 642, 284 S.W.2d 857, at page 862, the court "We think it is clear that no accord and satisfaction was had here. `A discharge of claims by way of......
-
Sisemore v. Neal
...this appeal. Though a different type of action was involved, and the suit was heard in Chancery. this court, in Fleming v. Cooper, 225 Ark. 634, 284 S.W.2d 857, 58 A.L.R.2d 694, quoted from 50 C.J.S. Judgments § 798, page 342, as stating the general and applicable rule: 'A wife will be conc......