Hemingway v. Grayling Lumber Co.

• Decision Date: 16 October 1916
• Docket Number: (No. 198.)
• Citation: 188 S.W. 1186
• Parties: HEMINGWAY v. GRAYLING LUMBER CO. et al.
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

188 S.W. 1186

HEMINGWAY v. GRAYLING LUMBER CO. et al.

(No. 198.)

Supreme Court of Arkansas.

October 16, 1916.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Desha County; W. B. Sorrells, Judge.

Action by C. C. Hemingway, Jr., against the Grayling Lumber Company and others. Judgment for defendants, and plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

F. M. Rogers, of Arkansas City, for appellant. J. Bernhardt, of Arkansas City, for appellees.

KIRBY, J.

Appellant brought this suit for damages for breach of a contract for hauling logs for appellees for the remainder of the year 1915, after February, which appellees agreed to have cut and have ready for hauling during said period, and agreed to pay the specified prices for a haul not exceeding one-fourth of a mile, and for all delivered which were hauled exceeding one-fourth but not exceeding one-half a mile, and for all which were hauled exceeding one-half but not three-fourths of a mile, and for all hauled over three-fourths but not exceeding one mile. The complaint alleges that appellant entered into the performance of said contract and hauled and delivered logs thereunder until the 13th day of May, 1915, at which time appellees, without cause, refused to permit appellant to continue the further performance thereof, and further:

"Plaintiff states that on the 28th day of August, 1915, he recovered judgment for damages sustained by him by reason of said breach of said contract by defendants, covering the period between the 13th day of May, 1915, and the date of said judgment; that he now sues for the recovery of damages accruing since said 28th day of August, 1915."

Claims damages in the sum of $10,000.

A general demurrer was interposed and also a special demurrer alleging that the complaint shows upon its face the matters included therein are res adjudicata. The demurrer was sustained, and, appellants electing to stand upon the complaint, judgment was rendered dismissing the action, from which this appeal is prosecuted.

The complaint shows that the suit is upon the same contract for the breach of which an action for damages had already been maintained, and that this action is prosecuted for the same breach of the contract, for damages accruing since the rendition of the first judgment. Its allegations show an entire breach of the contract and abandonment of its further performance by appellees, and no reason is disclosed why all the damages resulting from the alleged refusal of appellees to permit appellant to perform the contract...