Meyer v. Eichenbaum
| Decision Date | 05 May 1941 |
| Docket Number | 4-6342 |
| Citation | 150 S.W.2d 958,202 Ark. 438 |
| Parties | MEYER v. EICHENBAUM, EXECUTOR |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Appeal from Garland Chancery Court; Sam W. Garratt, Chancellor affirmed.
Affirmed.
Walter J. Hebert and Jay M. Rowland, for appellant.
Murphy & Wood and E. Charles Eichenbaum, for appellee.
The appellant, Harry Meyer, on April 18, 1940, filed a petition for additional and further construction of the will of S Meyer, deceased, in Garland chancery court. The original petition mentioned in the petition in this case was filed on November 30, 1937.
A decree was entered by the chancery court in favor of the executor, and among other things stated in the decree, that the plaintiff, as trustee, shall continue with the distribution of said income payments therefrom. The court had already decided that the $ 18,500 involved here was a part of the trust estate and should be distributed in accordance with the directions of the will.
The appellant here prosecuted an appeal in the former case to this court, and the decree of the chancellor was affirmed. The opinion in the former appeal is Meyer v Eichenbaum, Executor, 197 Ark. 650, 124 S.W.2d 830.
When the petition was filed in the instant case, demurrers were filed; the court sustained the demurrers, and Meyer prosecuted this appeal.
The plaintiff filed as exhibits to his petition a copy of the will of S. Meyer, deceased, and the decree of the Garland chancery court in the original case, the case which was appealed to this court and affirmed in 197 Ark. 650, 124 S.W.2d 830.
It was contended in the former case by the appellant that the word "proceeds" must be taken to mean the entire amount of the notes executed as evidence of the money loaned. The appellee contended that it was the intention of the testator to create a trust estate, and that his wife would be supported by the income or proceeds during her lifetime, and upon her death the proceeds or income from this loan should be divided according to the provisions of the will, in which appellant would receive 50 per cent.
The appellant contended that when the $ 18,500 loan was paid, he should receive 50 per cent. of it. The appellee contended that it belonged to the trust estate and he should receive the income or interest.
In the instant case the same question is involved. It is here contended by appellant that under the provisions of the will such part of the trust estate, consisting of the loan of $ 18,500, was to be divided and the appellant was to receive 50 per cent. thereof, and that said trust ends and terminates at the time the said loan falls due and payable.
We think that the judgment of the court in the first case is conclusive of the rights of the parties in this case. 15 R C. L., § 429, p. 949, gives the following statement of the doctrine of res judicata: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Davis v. Perryman
...such statement, appellant cites these Arkansas cases: Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. McGuire, 20 Ark. 658, 169 S.W.2d 872; Meyer v. Eichenbaum, 202 Ark. 438, 150 S.W.2d 958; Gates v. Mortgage Loan, etc., 200 Ark. 276, 139 S.W.2d 19; Berryman v. Cudahy Packing Co., 191 Ark. 533, 87 S.W.2d 21, and i......
-
Turner v. State, 5488
...issue in the subsequent proceeding was involved and determined. Carrigan v. Carrigan, 218 Ark. 298, 236 S.W.2d 579. In Meyer v. Eichenbaum, 202 Ark. 438, 150 S.W.2d 958, we adopted the following as one of the two main rules of the doctrine of res '* * * (2) Any right, fact, or matter in iss......
-
Larcon Company v. Wallingsford
...cases declare and follow the rule of res judicata as above quoted: Thomas v. McCullum, 201 Ark. 320, 144 S.W.2d 467; Meyer v. Eichenbaum, 202 Ark. 438, 150 S.W.2d 958; Ripley v. Kelly, 209 Ark. 389, 190 S.W.2d 526; Lillie v. Nunnally, 211 Ark. 202, 199 S.W.2d 751; Crump v. Loggains, 212 Ark......
-
Hastings v. Rose Courts, Inc., 5-3074
...of the litigation, and that the rule is to be construed strictly to mean parties claiming under the same title.' See Meyer v. Eichenbaum, 202 Ark. 438, 150 S.W.2d 958, and cases and authorities there In Cook v. American Cyanamid Co., 227 Ark. 268, 297 S.W.2d 933, we said: 'The contention th......