Snapp v. Stanwood

Decision Date16 April 1898
Citation45 S.W. 546,65 Ark. 222
PartiesSNAPP v. STANWOOD
CourtArkansas Supreme Court

Appeal from Woodruff Circuit Court HANCE N. HUTTON, Judge.

Judgment affirmed.

P. R Andrews and N.W. Norton, for appellant.

Appellant cannot be held liable for money had and received where the proof shows affirmatively that he did not receive it. 22 Ark 68; 23 Ark. 300; 11 Ark. 269. Refusal to so instruct was error on the part of the trial court.

R. D Campbell, for appellee.

An action for money had and received may be maintained, not only in case of actual receipt by defendant of money belonging to plaintiff, but in case of receipt of anything treated as or standing in lieu of money. 22 Ark. 68; 23 Ark. 294; 44 N.H. 291; 61 N.H. 339; 2 Greenl. Evid. § 118; 6 Gill, 81. Appellant had a right to instructions properly framed, upon this point; but he is bound by the language he uses in the instructions, and if they stated the law correctly, they were properly refused. 51 Ark. 88; 13 Ark. 317; 23 Ark. 730. Appellant disobeyed the instructions of his pricipal in accepting, as satisfaction of the debt, property other than money; hence he is not in a position to object to the form of action. 7 Cow. 68; 2 Greenl. Evid. § 118. An agent empowered to collect money cannot accept anything else in satisfaction of the demand. Mechem, Ag. § 375, and cases; 1 Am. & Eng. enc. Law, 357-8, and cases; 56 Ark. 375. If such an agent accepts anything in tasisfaction of the debt except money, he will be chargeable for money. 11 Johns. 464; 7 Cow. 668; 14 Mass. 122.

OPINION

BUNN, C. J.

This is a suit by Mrs. Stanwood against her agent, Snapp, for the sum of $ 224, and amount of rents alleged to have been collected by him from one Middlebrook, the tenant on the farm of plaintiff in Woodruff county for the year 1895.

Plaintiff resided at Russelville, Arkansas, and her agent, Snapp, was, and for some years had been, as such, renting out her said farm, and collecting the rents annually, with no other authority. It appears that Snapp had collected the rents for the year 1895, but, in part payment of the same, had taken a note purporting to have been executed and delivered by plaintiff on the 23d December, 1890, to one Coody, for the sum of $ 145.39, due and payable 1st December, 1891. This note had been sold and transferred, by indorsement, by Coody to T. E. Stanley, who, two or three weeks before the settlement between Snapp and Middlebrook, aforesaid, sold and transferred by indorsement the note to Middlebrook, on a credit, it seems; and Middlebrook also indorsed the note when Snapp received the same in part payment of said rents.

It appears, also that, at the time of the settlement of the rents as stated, Snapp purchased all the cotton crop of Middlebrook for that year, and that Stanley was present at the time for the purpose of collecting from Middlebrook the purchase price of the note, and presumably succeeded in doing so, Middlebrook being the better enabled to pay him by reason of the reduction of the rent debt out of the proceeds of his crop.

Immediately after this settlement, Snapp rendered his account to Mrs. Stanwood, showing the acceptance and credit by the amount of the note; and she as promptly rejected and repudiated said settlement for that reason, and at once notified him, with the declaration that if he (Snapp) did not pay her the amount of the note, which he had received and deducted without authority, she would sue him for the same; and, failing to do so, she afterwards instituted this suit for money had and received against him. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appealed.

The only material question in this case is whether or not the facts sustain a suit for money had and received by the defendant to use of the plaintiff. In Hutchinson v Phillips, 11 Ark. 270, the rule is stated thus by this court: "To maintain assumpsit for money had and received, plaintiff must show that defendant has...

To continue reading

Request your trial
20 cases
  • Biddle v. Riley
    • United States
    • Arkansas Supreme Court
    • April 26, 1915
    ...by this court. 63 Ark. 563; 88 Ark. 12, 114 S.W. 230; 84 Ark. 311, 105 S.W. 573. See, also, 83 Ark. 395; 87 Ark. 471; 82 Ark. 547; 65 Ark. 222; 89 Ark. 24; 88 Ark. 594; 85 Ark. 390, sustain the principle that instructions should be confined to the issues made by the pleadings, and that inst......
  • Capital Fire Insurance Company v. Kaufman
    • United States
    • Arkansas Supreme Court
    • July 12, 1909
    ...The burden was upon plaintiff to prove the custom and its applicability to the contract. 12 Cyc. 1098. See also 75 Ark. 251; 69 Ark. 380; 65 Ark. 222. The inventory and invoices were not preserved in accordance with the contract. It was error to admit estimates of the amount of stock on han......
  • St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Company v. Lamb
    • United States
    • Arkansas Supreme Court
    • May 23, 1910
    ...improper. 8 Ark. 183; 15 Ark. 491; 14 Ark. 226; 21 Ark. 370; 23 Ark. 101; 26 Ark. 513; 33 Ark. 350; 41 Ark. 282; 54 Ark. 336; 63 Ark. 177; 65 Ark. 222; 70 Ark. 136; 70 Ark. 441; 63 Ark. 387; 77 Ark. 20. Only damages are recoverable which may fairly be considered as naturally arising from th......
  • Ft. Smith Light & Traction Co. v. Barnes
    • United States
    • Arkansas Supreme Court
    • July 23, 1906
    ... ... 382; Beavers ... v. State, 54 Ark. 336, 15 S.W. 1024; St. Louis, ... I. M. & S. Ry. Co. v. Denty, 63 Ark. 177, 37 ... S.W. 719; Snapp v. Stanwood, 65 Ark. 222, ... 45 S.W. 546; St. Louis, I. M. & S. Ry. Co ... v. Woodward, 70 Ark. 441, 69 S.W. 55. Therefore it ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT