Reeves v. Romines

• Decision Date: 11 March 1918
• Docket Number: 217
• Citation: 201 S.W. 822,132 Ark. 599
• Parties: REEVES v. ROMINES
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

201 S.W. 822

132 Ark. 599

REEVES v. ROMINES

No. 217

Supreme Court of Arkansas

March 11, 1918

Appeal from Fulton Circuit Court; J. B. Baker, Judge; affirmed.

Affirmed.

Ellis & Jones, for appellant.

1. It was error to sustain the demurrer. The second amended complaint stated the proper measure of damages. 42 Ark. 257; 75 Id. 589; 102 Id. 108; 110 Id 504.

2. It is not necessary, on demurrer, to state or plead the measure of damages; 43 Ark. 257; 102 Id. 108; 206 N.Y. 89; 149 Ky. 65; 143 Id. 233.

Lehman Kay, for appellee.

1. The complaint is bad on demurrer because it does not allege such a damage as the law allows. 42 Ark. 257; 75 Id. 589; 102 Id. 108.

2. The court had no jurisdiction. 33 Ark. 633.

STATEMENT OF FACTS.

W. M Reeves brought this suit in the circuit court against John Romines to recover damages for being unlawfully evicted from twenty acres of land which he had rented from Romines. The complaint alleges that on the 19th day of March, 1917, the defendant was the owner of twenty acres of cleared land which he rented to the plaintiff for the year 1917; that the plaintiff agreed to pay as rent one-third of the crops raised on the land; that the defendant represented to the plaintiff that he had the right and authority to rent him said lands for the year 1917; that at the time plaintiff could have rented other lands upon which to have cultivated a crop which fact was known to the defendant.

That immediately after renting the lands from the defendant the plaintiff entered upon the premises and began such work as clearing up the land and plowing it, etc., preparatory to planting and raising a crop on it.

That Cinda Esmonds and others instituted an action in the chancery court to enjoin the plaintiff from cultivating or attempting to cultivate the lands on the ground that prior to the 19th day of March, 1917, the defendant, Romines, had rented said land to them for the year 1917. That on the 4th day of April 1917, the chancery court granted a temporary injunction in said case in accordance with the prayer of the complaint; that on the 2nd day of the regular April term of said chancery court the temporary injunction was made permanent.

The plaintiff states that immediately thereafter he tried to rent other lands in that neighborhood for the year 1917, but on account of the lateness of the season all the lands were rented. The last paragraph of the complaint is as follows:

"That in the premises rented from the defendant there are about twenty acres in cultivation and it was the understanding and agreement by and between this plaintiff and the defendant, John Romines, at the time of the above mentioned rental contract, that this plaintiff was to cultivate about ten acres in corn and about ten acres in cotton; that by reason of being unable to make his said crop for the year 1917, which would have been well and reasonably worth $ 600.00, to his part, which is less the cost and expense of production, this plaintiff has suffered damages in the sum of $ 600.00."

The prayer of the complaint was for $ 600.00. The court sustained a demurrer to the complaint and the plaintiff electing not to plead further, the court dismissed the complaint. The plaintiff has appealed.

OPINION

HART, J., (after stating the facts).

In the case of Thomas v. Croom, 102 Ark. 108, 143 S.W. 88, the court held, that the measure of damages for a breach of an implied covenant for possession in a contract of lease is the difference between the fair rental value of the demised premises and the rental price named in the lease; and that where the rental value is not proved, the lessee can recover only nominal damages. In the case of McElvaney v. Smith...