Neal v. Brandon
| Decision Date | 25 February 1905 |
| Citation | 85 S.W. 776,74 Ark. 320 |
| Parties | NEAL v. BRANDON |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Appeal from St. Francis Circuit Court, HANCE N. HUTTON, Judge.
Reversed.
Judgment reversed and cause dismissed.
J. R Beasley, for appellant.
The court destroyed its jurisdiction by striking out the defendant's pleas and denying defendant a hearing. 93 U.S. 274; 29 Ark. 81; 2 Estee Pl.? § 3274; 6 Ark. 250; Sand. & H. Dig. § 5820.
N. W Norton, for appellee.
Appellant's abstract presents nothing for this court to consider. 55 Ark 547; 57 Ark. 304; 58 Ark. 448; 59 Ark. 1.
1. Neal executed a mortgage to Brandon & Baugh on three mules, and they brought replevin for the mules after default, and issues were raised as to the indebtedness secured by the mortgage, and other matters. After a judgment in favor of Brandon & Baugh, an appeal was taken to this court, and the judgment reversed. Neal v. Brandon, 70 Ark. 79, 66 S.W. 200.
On the remand of the case, it was tried upon the issue as to whether Neal was indebted to Brandon & Baugh; if so, what amount. Included in the account in controversy was an account for which it was alleged on one side, and denied on the other, that Neal was liable. These issues were submitted to a jury, and a verdict reached finding the indebtedness to be the amount claimed by Brandon & Baugh, towit: $ 219.20 on account, and $ 34.21 interest, and finding one mule retained under bond to be of the value of $ 75 and damages for its use to be $ 35.
A judgment in usual terms was entered upon this verdict against Neal for full amount of the account and interest, and in addition thereto there was a judgment against Neal and his surety on the bond for the ascertained value of the mule and damages for its detention in the event that the judgment for the full amount and costs was not satisfied in ten days. This judgment was under authority of the act of May 23, 1901, providing for the settlement of account in replevin suits between mortgagor and mortgagee and rendering judgment therein. Kirby's Dig.§ 6869. This judgment was rendered March 21, 1902, and Neal appealed, and on October 15, 1904, this court affirmed the judgment, an oral opinion being delivered by Mr. Justice Hughes.
On the 9th day of June, 1902, Brandon & Baugh brought suit in justice court against Neal on the same account which had been in controversy in the replevin suit. On appeal to the circuit court this suit terminated in a judgment in favor of Brandon & Baugh for the amount of said account, less credits for two mules secured under the mortgage or judgment aforesaid. From this judgment Neal has appealed. Various questions are presented, and, as one is decisive of the case, the others need not be discussed. Neal interposed as a defense that the account upon which he was sued had been litigated in the former suit, which was then pending in the Supreme Court. This defense was sustained by the introduction of the pleadings and judgment in the former suit, showing fully the facts above briefly summarized. This was a good defense, and, being sustained by proper evidence, the court should have rendered judgment against Brandon & Baugh in this action. It is contended that the judgment in the replevin suit was binding as to the indebtedness therein found, but that it would not be safe to rely upon it as a judgment for all purposes; that it could be held that it would not support an execution; that it was only intended to furnish a means of settlement; and, in order to have a judgment enforceable by execution, this suit was brought. The judgment in question is in usual and apt terms, and it seems fully within the purview of the statute which authorizes the ascertainment and settlement of the accounts and judgment "for the property or the balance due thereon." The act was passed to permit an adjustment of accounts between mortgagor and mortgagee, and remedy the former law permitting recovery in replevin suits in such cases, where any amount was due, putting the mortgagor to a further suit to adjust the accounts, and that after his property had been taken, and in some instances for very small balances.
The law, being remedial in its nature, must receive a liberal construction to effectuate its object and intent. The judgment in question in the replevin suit settled all matters between the parties in issue therein, and was a bar to this suit. Mr. Black puts it this way: "A judgment rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction, on its merits, is a bar to any future suit, between the same parties or their privies, upon the same cause of action, so long as it remains unreversed." 2 Black, Judgments, § 504.
2. It is earnestly insisted by the appellees that the judgment should be affirmed on...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Nashville Lumber Company v. Howard County
- Sawyer v. Hentz
-
Montgomery v. Dane
...affirmed. 57 Ark. 304; 75 Ark. 571; 76 Ark. 217; 80 Ark. 19. In any event the costs of the appeal should be taxed against the appellant. 74 Ark. 320. 3. judgment should be affirmed because it affirmatively appears from the transcript that not all of the evidence and record is included there......
-
Beckler Produce Company v. American Railway Express Company
...309; 256 U.S. 554. E. H. Timmons, for appellant, in reply. The bill of exceptions is sufficient. 147 Ark. 197. The abstract is sufficient. 74 Ark. 320; 143 Ark. OPINION HART, J. (after stating the facts). Under our statutes express companies shall settle in twenty days after notice given fo......
-
THE END OF AN ERA? ABOLISHING THE ABSTRACT REQUIREMENT FOR ARKANSAS APPELLATE BRIEFS.
...in Commercial Transactions, 46 COLUM L. REV. 167, 183 (1946). (32.) Newbern, supra note 23, at 679. (33.) Neal v. Brandon & Baugh, 74 Ark. 320, 323-24, 85 S.W. 776, 777 (34.) Id. (35.) Smith, supra note 2, at 361. (36.) Bank of Ozark v. Isaacs, 263 Ark. 113, 114, 563 S.W.2d 707, 708 (19......