Harnwell v. Arkansas Rice Growers' Co-Operative Association

• Decision Date: 26 October 1925
• Docket Number: 191
• Parties: HARNWELL v. ARKANSAS RICE GROWERS' CO-OPERATIVE ASSOCIATION
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

276 S.W. 371

169 Ark. 622

HARNWELL v. ARKANSAS RICE GROWERS' CO-OPERATIVE ASSOCIATION

No. 191

Supreme Court of Arkansas

October 26, 1925

Appeal from Arkansas Circuit Court, Northern District; George W Clark, Judge; reversed.

STATEMENT BY THE COURT.

Louisa B. Harnwell instituted this action in the circuit court against the Arkansas Rice Growers' Co-operative Association and the Lonoke County Bank upon a complaint as follows:

"Comes now the plaintiff and for her cause of action against the defendant says: That during the years 1921 and 1922 she was the owner of the north half of section 36 in township 1 north, range 8 west, Lonoke County, Arkansas. That on the said land, during the year 1922, a rice crop was grown under and by virtue of an arrangement between this plaintiff and one L. J. Falls, by the terms of which arrangement the title to the said crop was to be one-half in this plaintiff and one-half in the said L. J. Falls. That the said rice crop so grown as aforesaid was, by the said Falls, at the instance and in accordance with the directions of the defendant Lonoke County Bank, delivered to the defendant, the Arkansas Rice Growers' Co-operative Association. That the said Arkansas Rice Growers' Co-operative Association is a corporation organized under the laws of Arkansas, and engaged in the marketing and selling of rice and rice products. That the defendant Lonoke County Bank is a banking corporation, also organized under the laws of Arkansas, and having its office and principal place of business in the city of Lonoke Arkansas. That both of the said defendants, at all times herein mentioned, were aware of the arrangement existing between this plaintiff and the said L. J. Falls, and that this plaintiff was the owner of a one-half interest in the said rice crop. That the rice crop, so delivered as aforesaid, was sold by the said defendants for the net sum of $ 10,600.50, one-half of which amount, or $ 5,300.25, was the value of plaintiff's interest therein, and which said sum should have been paid to her. That the said defendants converted the said sum to their own use, and have failed and refused to pay to this plaintiff any part thereof, though the same is now, and since the first day of March, 1923, has been justly due and owing to her.

"That during the year 1921 one McGarrity grew a rice crop on a small portion of the above-described land under an arrangement the same as that heretofore outlined with the said L. J. Falls, one-half of which said crop amounted to the sum of $ 244.73. That this crop was by the said defendants converted to their own use in like manner as the foregoing crop, and that the said defendants are now, and since March 1, 1922, have been, indebted to this plaintiff in the said sum of $ 244.73, which amount they wrongfully refused to pay to her.

"Wherefore plaintiff prays that she have judgment against the said defendants, and each of them, for the aforesaid sums of $ 5,300.25, with lawful interest thereon, from March 1, 1923 and for the said sum of $ 244.73 with lawful interest thereon from March 1, 1922, together with all her costs herein expended, and all proper relief."

The defendants filed a demurrer to the complaint, which was by the court sustained. Thereupon the plaintiff declined to amend her complaint, but elected to stand upon it. It was adjudged by the court that the demurrer be sustained, and that the complaint of the plaintiff be dismissed. From this judgment the plaintiff has duly prosecuted an appeal to this court.

Judgment reversed and cause remanded.

George C. Lewis, for appellant.

Charles A. Walls, for appellee.

OPINION

HART, J., (after stating the facts.)

The judgment of the circuit court was wrong. This court has held that if the contract between the landlord and a person making the crop on his place shows the intention of the parties to become tenants in common, then the title to the crop raised vests as any other chattels held in common, and either one of the common owners may maintain his action against one who has converted the property to his use for the value...