Lansdell v. Woods

• Decision Date: 19 February 1917
• Docket Number: 177
• Citation: 192 S.W. 715,127 Ark. 466
• Parties: LANSDELL v. WOODS
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

192 S.W. 715

127 Ark. 466

LANSDELL v. WOODS

No. 177

Supreme Court of Arkansas

February 19, 1917

Appeal from Crawford Circuit Court, Jas. Cochran, Judge; affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

Wear & London, for appellant.

1. This well known rule is laid down by our own court. When a party accepts a written lease for a term of years * * * and enters upon and holds the premises for a term, he will not be exempted from the payment of rent because he did not sign the lease. 21 Ark. 50; 7 Ala. 772; 37 P. 1037; 30 Cal. 547; 1 Ga 220; 172 Ill. 547; 141 Id. 565; 135 Ind. 357; 20 Mo.App. 544; 71 Tex. 228.

2. After enjoying the profits and benefits, one cannot disaffirm the contract and escape the burdens.

3. Parol evidence to vary the items of a written contract is not admissible. The contract was plain and certain and needed no explanation. The court erred in its instructions to the jury especially in refusing those asked for appellant. The latter are a simple declaration of the law. 3 Ark. 222; Ib. 358; 4 Id. 199. The trial court proceeded upon the wrong theory. The contract was valid and the testimony supported appellant's contention that Woods is bound by his written agreement.

C. A Starbird, for appellee.

Woods had no connection with this case, except the lease was assigned to him as indemnity against loss on the note of Weese. None of the instructions asked by defendant state the law. Each leaves out of consideration whether Wood entered into possession of the land or farmed it under the lease. Wood signed no contract or lease and never agreed to pay the rent. The instructions given were correct.

STATEMENT BY THE COURT.

Tom Lansdell instituted this action in the circuit court against John F. Woods and Frank Weese to recover $ 600.00 alleged to be due him on a lease contract. The facts are as follows:

In September, 1913, Thomas Lansdell leased to J. H. Bozarth by a contract in writing a certain tract of land in Crawford county, Arkansas, for the period of five years for the sum of $ 600.00 each year. It was shown by oral testimony on the part of the defendants that Bozarth assigned this lease to Frank Weese and that the latter immediately went into possession of the land and has been in possession of the same ever since. Bozarth agreed to transfer the lease to Weese for the sum of $ 225.00. Weese did not have the money. To get it it was agreed that the lease should be transferred to Woods as security for this loan. Pursuant to this verbal agreement, Bozarth transferred the lease to Woods. Woods held the lease until Weese paid off the note which he had signed for Weese and then Woods transferred the lease to Weese. Woods was never in possession of the land at all. Weese paid the note in 1914. Woods then assigned the lease to Weese and did not thereafter have anything to do with the lease. In the spring of 1915, there was an overflow in the Arkansas river, which destroyed most of the crop of Weese on the land in question. On this account he failed to pay the rent and this suit was instituted against him and Woods by Lansdell to recover the rent for that year.

Lansdell introduced a letter written to him in regard to the matter in which Woods stated that he had transferred the lease to Weese and referred to the fact that the river had destroyed the crops on the land for the year in question. He also asked in the letter what Lansdell proposed to do with them and made a proposition about the rent for Weese. In explaining this letter both Woods and Weese testified that the latter could not write and that the letter was written for him and that the parties had no intention of stating that Woods was then interested in the lease or that he had ever been except to hold it as collateral security.

At a former term of the court the jury had returned a verdict against Weese for the amount of the rent and no appeal was taken from that judgment. Hence the liability of Woods only for rent is involved in this case.

The jury returned a verdict in the defendant's favor and the plaintiff has appealed.

OPINION

HART, J. (after stating the facts).

Counsel for the plaintiff claim that the court erred in refusing to give certain instructions asked by them, but the exceptions to these...