Satchfield v. Laconia Levee District

• Decision Date: 18 February 1905
• Parties: SATCHFIELD v. LACONIA LEVEE DISTRICT
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

85 S.W. 409

74 Ark. 270

SATCHFIELD v. LACONIA LEVEE DISTRICT

Supreme Court of Arkansas

February 18, 1905

Appeal from Desha Circuit Court, Arkansas City District, ANTONIO B GRACE, Judge.

Affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

W. A Compton, for appellants.

Peaceable possession will support allegation of ownership as against one who disturbs without right. 37 Ark. 32; 6 Rand. 457; Cooley, Torts, 436. A misjoinder of parties can only be reached by a motion to strike. 36 Ark. 191; 41 Ark. 254. The complaint was sufficient. 25 Ark. 436; 29 Ark. 448.

F. M Rogers, for appellee.

Satchfield cannot recover because he voluntarily paid to have the timber released and received a valuable consideration for his money. 43 Ark. 172; 46 Ark. 217.

OPINION

HILL, C. J.

L. A. Fitzpatrick in his own right, and as representative of the heirs of J. C. O. Smith, and J. M. Satchfield filed their complaint at law against the appellee Levee District in Phillips Circuit Court, alleging in substance: That Fitzpatrick and the other heirs of Smith owned a certain described tract of land, and sold the timber on the land at certain prices and on certain terms, set forth in a contract exhibited as part of the complaint, to plaintiff, Satchfield. That Satchfield under this contract cut from the lands a large amount of timber, upon which there was due a certain sum (left blank) to the Smith heirs, according to the terms of the contract. That the Levee District brought an attachment suit against Satchfield, and obtained an order of delivery for this timber, and the timber was taken from his possession under said order. And further alleged: "He was compelled either to go to the expense and trouble of giving bond to retain possession, and of employing counsel to defend said suit, or to submit to the terms of settlement offered by defendant." That he was unable to give bond and employ counsel, "and paid the illegal exactions of defendant, and paid said defendant the sum of $ 1,043.28 in order to release said timber from attachment." Then the complaint alleges that defendant was not the owner of the land from which the timber was cut, and it was a "trespasser" in said attachment. The prayer was for the recovery of the sum paid, part being for the Fitzpatrick interests under the contract and the other for Satchfield, and that Satchfield recover the further sum of $ 500 for his damages sustained by reason of the illegal levy of said attachment." A demurrer was sustained to this complaint, and the plaintiffs (appellants), standing on the complaint, appealed.

The compromise of a disputed claim furnishes a sufficient consideration to uphold the terms of such compromise, even though the asserted claim is without merit or foundation. Mason v. Wilson, 43 Ark. 172.

The voluntary adjustment of a matter in dispute or litigation, even when protesting against it, effectually terminates the question or litigation, in the absence of intimidation, fraud or concealment producing such settlement. Springfield & Memphis R. Co. v. Allen, 46 Ark. 217.

There are no allegations in this complaint of fraud or concealment and the facts alleged do not amount to intimidation or duress. The facts stated--that the appellees had no title to the timber, but took it under legal process asserting title thereto, thereby compelling appellant to submit to the terms of settlement offered or go to the expense and trouble of giving bond...