Storthz v. Watts

• Decision Date: 29 March 1915
• Docket Number: 278
• Citation: 175 S.W. 406,117 Ark. 500
• Parties: STORTHZ v. WATTS
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

175 S.W. 406

117 Ark. 500

STORTHZ v. WATTS

No. 278

Supreme Court of Arkansas

March 29, 1915

Appeal from Pulaski Circuit Court, Third Division; G. W. Hendricks Judge; reversed.

Judgement reversed and cause remanded.

W T. Tucker, for appellant.

Miles & Wade, for appellee.

OPINION

MCCULLOCH, C. J.

The plaintiff, L. Storthz, leased his farm to defendant Watts by oral contract entered into in March or April, 1913. Defendant held over into the year 1914, and this is an action of unlawful detainer instituted by plaintiff to regain possession. Plaintiff contends that the contract only covered the renting of the farm for the year 1913, whilst defendant's contention is that the lease covered a period of two years, that is to say, the remainder of the year 1913 and also the year 1914. The defendant was put out of possession under a writ issued at the commencement of the action, and a trial of the case resulted in a verdict in his favor, and his damages were assessed at the sum of $ 160. Plaintiff has appealed.

There was a sharp conflict in the testimony. Plaintiff testified that he rented the land to defendant for the year 1913 at a specified rental price of $ 3 per acre; that there were eighty acres of the land which defendant agreed to cultivate and pay for; but that at the end of the year, defendant having cultivated only about thirty or forty acres, they compromised by defendant paying rent on forty acres of the land. Defendant testified that plaintiff made a verbal contract with him for a lease of the farm for the years 1913 and 1914.

It is insisted, that the alleged oral contract for lease of the lands for a period of more than one year was within the statute of frauds and therefore void. Plaintiff pleaded below the statute of frauds. There is no contention that the contract was in writing, but defendant contends that it was taken out of the operation of the statute of frauds on two grounds, namely: One that there was a ratification or renewal of the contract after the expiration of the first year, which amounted to a new contract; and, second, that defendant made valuable improvements on the place in anticipation of enjoying the use of it for the full period stipulated in the alleged contract. We have examined the testimony carefully and reached the conclusion that it is not legally sufficient to sustain the defendant upon either of those points. Plaintiff denied that he ever leased the place for a longer period than for the year 1913, and denied that anything was said by defendant after the expiration of the year, about holding it for another year, and denied that there was any agreement made between him and the defendant for leasing the place during the next year. Defendant testified that about the first of January, 1914, the plaintiff came to the farm for the purpose of collecting the rent for the year 1913, and that after he paid plaintiff by giving a cheek for the agreed amount, something was said about a ditch to drain the water off of some of the land, and that plaintiff stated in reply that the next time he came down to the place he would go over there and see about the ditch. There is no contention on the part of defendant that there was any specification in that conversation about renting the place for another year, but this testimony is brought forward as tending to show a recognition of the existing...