Koons v. Markle

• Decision Date: 25 April 1910
• Citation: 127 S.W. 959
• Parties: KOONS v. MARKLE.
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

127 S.W. 959

KOONS v. MARKLE.

Supreme Court of Arkansas.

April 25, 1910.

Appeal from Craighead Chancery Court; Edward D. Robertson, Chancellor.

Action by Minor M. Markle against J. A. Koons. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Reversed and remanded, with directions.

The appellee in his complaint alleges that the appellant was the owner of the S. W. ¼ of the N. E. ¼ and the S. E. ¼ of the N. W. ¼ of section 8, township 13 N., range 3 E., and that on or about the 25th day of July, 1909, that the appellant, Koons, contracted and agreed to sell and convey to the appellee the said land at and for the consideration of $700, the conveyance to be made by deed with covenants of warranty, and that the said contract was evidence and ratified by certain correspondence between appellant and appellee, and that the copies of said correspondence were attached as exhibits to the complaint. The appellee says further in his complaint that he had agreed and contracted to sell the said lands to other parties; says that he had tendered to the appellant the said $700 and demanded deed conveying to him the said lands, and that the said appellant failed, neglected, and refused to execute the said deed and convey the land. The prayer of the complaint was for specific performance of the alleged contract. The exhibits referred to in the complaint are certain letters written by Koons to Markle and the replies thereto. Service of summons was duly had upon appellant. Appellant failed to answer, but made default. When the cause was reached upon the call of the calendar, the court found the issues in favor of appellee, and a decree was entered in accordance with the prayer of the complaint. The case is here on appeal.

H. M. Cooley and Basil Baker, for appellant. Charles D. Frierson, for appellee.

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

"The only question for the consideration of the Supreme Court upon a defendant's appeal from a default decree duly rendered against him is whether the allegations of the complaint are sufficient to authorize the relief granted by the decree." Benton v. Holliday, 44 Ark. 56; American Freehold Land Mortgage Co. v. McManus, 68 Ark. 263, 58 S. W. 250.

The complaint alleges that appellant contracted and agreed to sell and convey to appellee certain lands for a consideration of $700, "which contract and agreement is evidenced and ratified by certain correspondence between the parties hereto, copies of which are attached as exhibits...