Gaither v. Campbell
| Decision Date | 28 March 1910 |
| Citation | 126 S.W. 1061,94 Ark. 329 |
| Parties | GAITHER v. CAMPBELL |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Appeal from Mississippi Chancery Court; Edward D. Robertson Chancellor; reversed.
Decree reversed and cause remanded.
J. T Coston, for appellant.
After lapse of the term, the court had no power to vacate the judgment, except upon complaint filed as provided by law. 52 Ark. 318; 53 Ark. 21. The decree was not authorized by the mandate. 84 S.W. 1046; 91 S.W. 27.
S. S Semmes, W. J. Lamb and Flannigan & Rogers, for appellee.
The trial court is left free to make any order with reference to new matter in a case that has been remanded to it by the Supreme Court not inconsistent with the opinions of the Supreme Court. 16 Ark. 181. The trial court was required by the mandate to adjudicate matters arising that were not settled by the Supreme Court. 36 Ark. 26; 98 S.W. 969.
OPINION
This is the third appearance here of this case. Plaintiffs (the petitioners, Mrs. Gaither and the Kings) each claiming title to an undivided third of the land in controversy as equal tenants in common by inheritance from W. A. King, instituted an action to quiet their said title to this and other tracts of land. Campbell intervened, and claimed title by adverse possession to a tract of forty acres. The chancery court rendered a decree in Campbell's favor, and this court reversed the decree and remanded the case with directions to permit either party to amend the pleadings and take further proof as to an undeveloped issue. Gaither v Gage, 82 Ark. 51, 100 S.W. 80.
The cause was heard again by the chancellor on amended pleadings. Among other things, Campbell pleaded that those under whom he claimed title had, while peaceably holding the land under color of title, made improvements thereon to the value of $ 2,000, and prayed for reimbursement if it should be found that plaintiffs were the owners of the land. No proof was taken to sustain the plea of having made improvements.
The chancellor rendered a decree in the case on March 5, 1908, quieting Mrs. Gaither's title to an undivided third of the land, and in favor of Campbell quieting his title to the other undivided two-thirds claimed by the Kings. The grounds for the decree were that the Kings were barred by limitation, but that Mrs. Gaither was not barred on account of the fact that she was a married woman. Nothing was said in the decree about improvements, and Campbell did not appeal from that part of the decree in Mrs. Gaither's favor. The Kings appealed, and this court decided that Campbell's plea of title by adverse possession was not sustained except as to a small part of the land--about one acre--and reversed the case with directions, stated in the opinion, "to quiet the title to all the forty-acre tract of land in the petitioners, except the portion thereof containing about one acre which was taken possession of and enclosed by Mary E. Hale in August, 1897; and if it shall be necessary to take further proof in order to establish the description of that portion of said land, that can be done." King v. Campbell, 89 Ark. 450, 116 S.W. 899.
The mandate of the Supreme Court followed the language of the opinion, except that the following words were added, "and for further proceedings to be therein had according to the principles of equity and not inconsistent with the opinion herein delivered."
On the remand of the case the chancellor entered a decree in accordance with the mandate, quieting the title of all the plaintiffs to the tract of land in controversy except the one-acre tract mentioned; and further decreed that Campbell recover the value of improvements, and made a reference to a special master to take proof and report the amounts. The master made his report at the next term, finding the value of the improvements, less rents and profits, to be the sum of $ 571.70, and the court overruled exceptions to and confirmed the report, and rendered a decree declaring said amount to be a lien on the whole tract. This of course included the undivided interest of Mrs. Gaither and the Kings, all of whom have appealed.
It is clear that the decree declaring a lien against Mrs Gaither's interest in the lands was erroneous. The court had, at a previous term, rendered a decree quieting her title, and nothing was said therein about the value of improvements. That decree was not appealed from, and became final...
To continue reading
Request your trial