Shonyo v. Cothran

• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: MCHANEY, J.
• Citation: Shonyo v. Cothran, 97 S.W.2d 909, 193 Ark. 124 (Ark. 1936)
• Decision Date: 09 November 1936
• Docket Number: 4-4418
• Parties: SHONYO v. COTHRAN

97 S.W.2d 909

193 Ark. 124

SHONYO v. COTHRAN

4-4418

Supreme Court of Arkansas

November 9, 1936

Appeal from Mississippi Chancery Court, Chickasawba District; J. F Gautney, Chancellor; affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

Frank C. Douglas, for appellant.

Neill Reed, for appellees.

OPINION

MCHANEY, J.

Appellant filed three separate suits in the chancery court seeking to foreclose on sales contracts which he had made with the appellees for certain lots in the Hollipeter-Shonyo addition to Blytheville. Prior to the filing of these suits in the chancery court, appellant had brought three other suits against the same appellees to recover the possession of the same properties covered under the several contracts of sale and which had been tried in the circuit court, with verdicts and judgments adverse to appellant's claim of title and right of possession. The defendants in the circuit court, appellees in this action, defended in the circuit court on the ground that they had fully paid appellant for the properties purchased from him and of which they were in possession, and the verdict of the jury and the judgment of the court sustained their contentions. When these present suits were filed in the chancery court, appellees answered denying the allegations of the complaint and set up the proceedings, verdicts, and judgments in the circuit court as a bar to the action in the chancery court on the ground of res judicata. The three suits were consolidated and tried together in the chancery court, and the pleas of res judicata were sustained, the complaints dismissed for want of equity, and this appeal followed.

Appellant contends that the court erred in sustaining the pleas for the reason that the verdict of the jury, which merely found for the appellees for the possession of the property sued for, shows that the only issue submitted and tried was that of the immediate right of possession of the property. We cannot agree with appellant in this contention. It is true that the circuit court actions merely sought to recover the possession of the property under the terms of the sales contracts which provided that upon default in the payment of the installments represented by notes, the sales contracts should be converted into lease agreements and that all prior payments should be treated as rents. The appellees, however, defended their right of possession upon the ground that they had paid all payments called for...