Reynolds v. Reynolds
Decision Date | 23 January 1892 |
Citation | 18 S.W. 377 |
Parties | REYNOLDS v. REYNOLDS. |
Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Action by Annie B. Reynolds against Dennis W. Reynolds to recover certain lands. Plaintiff obtained judgment, and both parties appeal. Reversed.
P. H. Crenshaw and S. A. D. Eaton, for plaintiff. J. C. Hawthorne, for defendant.
On the 16th day of May, 1890, the appellee brought this action to recover of appellant lands described in her complaint. The appellant admitted that the appellee was the owner of the lands, and stated that the appellee's father died in 1873, leaving, him surviving, his widow and the appellee; that no dower had been assigned the widow; that she remained in possession of the land until 1880, when she placed appellant in possession; that on 30th day of January, 1890, the appellant entered into a contract with the appellee, in which it was agreed that he should use and cultivate the land, and pay a certain part of the rent therefor; and that the appellant paid the appellee $65 in satisfaction of back rents. He claimed $600 for improvements, $65 for taxes, and denied that the appellee had sustained damages by reason of his possession. The evidence showed that the appellee's father died intestate in 1872, occupying the land in question as a homestead, leaving, him surviving, his widow, America Reynolds, and the appellee; that the widow afterwards married B. R. Hale, and that in the year 1880 she placed the appellant in possession of the land; that the rents on the land since appellant was placed in possession and the gross receipts of rents by appellant were $1,160; that appellant had paid taxes on land, $65, and $600 in making necessary repairs and improvements of a permanent nature. The appellant then identified and offered to read in evidence the written agreement referred to in his answer, which the court refused to permit to be read as evidence in the case, to which appellant excepted. The agreement is as follows: The defendant then offered to prove by his own testimony that he paid the plaintiff $65, in satisfaction of the back rents on the land; that he would not have paid the same if the plaintiff had not signed the contract. The court refused to allow the evidence to go to the jury, to which the defendant excepted. The defendant testified that the plaintiff was a female, and was 18 years old 12th of October, 1889. The court instructed the jury as follows: "The court instructs the jury that the plaintiff is entitled to recover a reasonable rental value for the land in controversy from the time the defendant entered into the possession thereof, less taxes paid by him and the amount expended in all needful repairs and improvements;" to the giving of which the defendant saved exceptions. The defendant filed a motion for a new trial, and assigned as errors: The refusing to permit the defendant to read as evidence the agreement entered into between the parties on the 30th of January, 1890, in reference to the rents, etc.; the refusing to permit the defendant to introduce evidence to the effect that about the 31st day of January, 1890, the defendant paid plaintiff $65 in satisfaction of back rents due on land in controversy; and the giving of the first instruction. The motion for a new trial was overruled, the defendant saved...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Lambright v. Bales
... ... Dailey v. Abbott, 40 Ark. 275; ... Robertson v. Read, 52 Ark. 381; ... Harrell v. Stapleton, 55 Ark. 1, 16 S.W ... 474; Reynolds ... ...
-
Lambright v. Bales
...275, Robertson v. Read, 52 Ark. 381, 14 S. W. 387, 20 Am. St. Rep. 188, Harrill v. Stapleton, 55 Ark. 1, 16 S. W. 474, Reynolds v. Reynolds, 55 Ark. 375, 18 S. W. 377, and Danenhauer v. Dawson, ...
- Reynolds v. Reynolds
-
Dreyfus & Co. v. Roberts
...v. Ross, 33 Ark. 572, the rule originating in Pinnel's Case was quoted from text-writers, followed, and applied. In Reynolds v. Reynolds, 55 Ark. 569, 18 S. W. 377, a statement of the rule by Lord Ellenborough in Fitch v. Sutton, 5 East, 230, is quoted and followed. In Gordon v. Moore, 44 A......