Mason v. Gates

• Decision Date: 26 April 1909
• Citation: 119 S.W. 70
• Parties: MASON et al. v. GATES et al.
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

Page 70

119 S.W. 70

MASON et al. v. GATES et al.

Supreme Court of Arkansas.

April 26, 1909.

Appeal from Prairie Chancery Court; Jno. M. Elliott, Chancellor.

Action by F. Gates and another against John Malcolm and another, in which Kate A. Crawford and others intervened. From a decree for plaintiffs, certain defendants and interveners appealed. The decree was reversed and remanded (82 Ark. 294, 102 S. W. 190), and, from the decree thereupon entered, defendant W. J. Mason, special administrator of S. W. Mason, deceased, and the interveners, appeal. Affirmed.

Manning & Emerson and J. M. McClintock, for appellants. J. H. Harrod and J. G. & C. B. Thweatt, for appellees.

FRAUENTHAL, J.

This is the second appeal of this cause to this court. Upon the first appeal a decision was rendered by this court on April 8, 1907, and the report of our opinion appears in the case of Mason v. Gates, 82 Ark. 294, 102 S. W. 190. In that opinion the nature of this suit is fully set out and also the decision of this court. From this it will appear that the litigation related to certain lots in block No. 43 in the town of Devall Bluff, Ark., and that the controversy grew out of the fact that there had been two different plats made of this block No. 43, upon which the lots had been differently numbered and differently located. This court determined upon said appeal that the printed plat known as plat No. 1 was the correct plat of said block, and correctly designated and located the various lots in said block, and that the plat known as the recorded plat incorrectly designated the lots, and also decided that the plaintiffs were not entitled to recover the relief which they asked. On September 11, 1907, the mandate of this court was filed in the Prairie chancery court, and at the November term, 1907, the said chancery court rendered the following decree in conformity, as it thought, with said mandate and the decision of this court: "F. Gates and R. S. Moore, Plaintiffs, v. John Malcolm and R. S. Mason, Defendants. Now on this day, this cause coming on to be heard, comes the plaintiffs, by J. G. Thweatt and J. S. Thomas, their attorneys, and comes Eugene Lankford, assignee of John Malcolm and W. J. Mason, special administrator of S. R. Mason, deceased, by J. M. McClintock, their attorney, and all parties in interest having been served with notice of this proceeding, and this cause being submitted on the mandate of the Supreme Court of Arkansas, and the pleadings and papers in the case, by which it appears that the former decree, which was rendered in this cause on the 8th day of November, 1906, was error and ought not to have been rendered, and it appearing further by said mandate that the town plat of the town of Devall Bluff, Ark., as it appears on the record is incorrect in so far as it affects block 43, and that the printed plat which is designated in the pleadings and evidence as plat No. 1 is correct, the difference in the two plats being the way the lots are numbered, the plat on record showing the lots numbered commencing with lot 1 on the northwest corner of said block and numbering around the block, while the printed plat or plat No. 1 commences in the northwest corner of said block and numbering south around the block, showing lot numbers 12, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 in said block fronting on Main street, and it appearing from the mandate of said Supreme Court that the plaintiffs are not entitled to recover, and that the decree of this court heretofore rendered confirming title in them to lots 25, 26, 27, and 28 in block 43 ought not to have been made — it is thereupon ordered, adjudged, and decreed that the town plat of the town of Devall Bluff, Ark., as recorded in Deed Record Q, p. 81, be, and the same is hereby, corrected and reformed so as to show the numbering of lots in block 43 as shown by the printed plat exhibited in this case as plat No. 1, and the clerk and recorder of deeds for Prairie county, Ark., be and he is hereby directed to correct the said record plat so as to conform to this decree. By agreement of counsel it is ordered, adjudged, and decreed that the title of lot 5 in block 43, town of Devall Bluff, be and the same is hereby quieted, confirmed, and made complete in Eugene Lankford, his heirs and assigns forever, and it is further ordered, adjudged, and decreed that the complaint of the plaintiffs herein be, and the same is hereby, dismissed at their costs, and that the defendants have judgment against the plaintiffs for all their costs in and about this suit expended. To the judgment and decree of the court the defendants at the time excepted, and their exceptions noted of record, and defendants pray an appeal to the Supreme Court of Arkansas, which appeal is granted." From the pleadings in this case it appears that F. Gates and R. S. Moore were the parties plaintiffs, and John Malcolm and S. R. Mason were the parties defendants to the complaint. In the progress of the case prior to the first appeal other persons were made or became parties to the suit, some by filing answers and others by filing interventions. The parties who are prosecuting this second appeal are the defendant W. J. Mason, special administrator of S. R. Mason, who is claiming lot No. 6, and Kate A. Crawford, Ozilla Adams, James R. Walker, and W. T. Walker, who filed an intervention and claimed lots No. 7 and 8, in block 43, according to said plat No. 1, as the heirs of G. W. Hanna and J. R. Hanna.

It is contended by these appellants that, under the opinion and the mandate of this court, the Prairie chancery court should in this case have entered a decree vesting and quieting all title to said lot 6 in the estate of S. R. Moore, and vesting and quieting all title to lots 7 and 8 in the above-named interveners, and also divesting all title and claims of every kind to said lots out of appellees and their grantees, and enjoining them from interfering with appellants in the use and occupancy of said lots, and estopping them from setting up any claim or title to said lots. The extent of the findings and decision of this court on said appeal appears, we think, clearly from said opinion; nevertheless, in order to make the same more certainly understood, we will notice the nature...