Morris v. Green
| Decision Date | 27 May 1905 |
| Parties | MORRIS v. GREEN. |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Action by W. N. Morris against Eli Green for rent. From a judgment of a justice of the peace in favor of plaintiff, defendant appealed to the circuit court, and by consent the cause was transferred to equity, and consolidated with a suit by Green against Morris for specific performance of a contract for the purchase of the land in question. From a decree in favor of Green, Morris appeals. Affirmed.
Oliphint & Miles, for appellant. P. C. Dooley and Pugh & Wiley, for appellee.
Morris sold Eli Green a 40-acre tract of land for $480. This agreement was verbal, made about March 1, 1897, and no written evidence of the contract was to be made until a payment on purchase price was made. Green went into possession at once, and commenced improving the land. On the 28th of October, 1897, Green paid Morris $45 on the purchase price, which payment was satisfactory to Morris, who then drew a written contract between them. This contract provided for the payment or the $480 in four equal, annual installments, evidenced by four notes executed by Green, due November 1, 1897, November 1, 1898, November 1, 1899, and November 1, 1900. The contract provided that on the payment of each of said notes, with accrued interest, and the taxes upon the land, Morris would execute a deed therefor to Green; and, in case of default upon the first payment, all the notes were to become due, and payments made on the purchase price were to be considered as rent. The contract, on the face of it, was a valid one. Ish v. Morgan, 48 Ark. 413, 3 S. W. 440; Quertermous v. Hatfield, 54 Ark. 16, 14 S. W. 1096; Block v. Smith, 61 Ark. 266, 32 S. W. 1070. Green was an ignorant negro, whose learning was limited to ability to sign his name. Morris was a business man. This contract was read over to Green and signed by him. The first note fell due two days after its date, and Morris admits that he knew Green could not pay it, and agreed to wait till the second became due before requiring payment of the balance of it; the $45 then being the only payment required. Green testified that under the original verbal contract, and the written contract as he understood it, he was to have four years to pay for the land, and, further, that he did not know of the rental provision in case of default. Conceding that his evidence is not sufficient to overcome the written contract (Goerke v. Rogers, 86 S. W. 837), pass to the subsequent conduct of the parties. In the fall of 1898 Green was owing, under the written contract, on the land, $195, and owing a store account to Morris of $169.05. To secure the latter, Morris had a crop mortgage. From the proceeds of his crop Green paid Morris in October $151.60. He says it was agreed that $100 should be paid on the land debt. Morris denies this, and asserts it was all paid on the store account. Morris says that Green then forfeited his contract, but fails to show any notice of such assertion of this claim to Green, beyond saying that he told his bookkeeper to tell Green. Green says he was not so notified, and the bookkeeper was not called. Green made several payments after this alleged forfeiture. According to Morris' books, his total payments were $184.92, which would be $33.32 after the October payment, and which would discharge the store account due of that date, and leave $17.45 to apply on the land. The chancellor found—and...
To continue reading
Request your trial