Taliafero v. Barnett

• Citation: 1 S.W. 702,47 Ark. 359
• Parties: TALIAFERRO v. BARNETT
• Decision Date: 16 October 1886
• Court: Supreme Court of Arkansas

1 S.W. 702

47 Ark. 359

TALIAFERRO v. BARNETT

Supreme Court of Arkansas

October 16, 1886

APPEAL from Dorsey Circuit Court, Hon. JOHN M. BRADLEY, Circuit Judge.

Decree reversed and cause remanded.

W. P Stephens for Appellant.

The court below refused or failed to obey the mandate, and permitted Barnett, the appellee, to file a new answer, which in substance, alleges that this court, in its opinion heretofore rendered, violated the well known doctrine of stare decisis, and that, therefore, the mandate ought not to be obeyed, when, in truth, if the mistakes made in Sheppard v. Thomas and Jones v. Doss, 26 Ark. 617 and 27 Ark. 518, both decided by a divided court and virtually overruled in Campbell v. Rankin, 28 Ark 401, had not been corrected, this court, to use the language of the court in Callender's adm'r v. Insurance Co., 23 Pa. St., 474, would have committed a greater error than the one which it felt bound to correct. Wells on Res Adjudicata and Stare Decisis, chap. 14, p. 576, title "Limitations of the Rule of Stare Decisis." Opinion and authorities cited by this court in this cause, 37 Ark. 511.

That the authorities which will be cited by appellee's attorney do not apply, see chap. 14, supra, and authorities there referred to.

Barnett had no vested right which the court can feel bound to respect. On the contrary, he knew or could have known, by inspection of the deed from Eliza Comer to Pauley & Glover, that some one, under the true rule and well established doctrine of equity, might have a vested right to enforce the lien retained in the deed, notwithstanding the error in Shepard v. Thomas and Jones v. Doss, which was rather promptly and quickly rectified in Campbell v. Rankin, supra.

That the decision of this court in this cause is the law of the case, is more than authority, is a final adjudication from the consequences of which the court below cannot depart, (nor, indeed, this court,) nor the parties relieve themselves, see Wells on Res Adjudicata and Stare Decisis, chap. 45, p. 569, and cases there cited; Foutenberry v. Frazier et al. 5 Ark. 200; The Real Estate Bank v. Rawdon et al., Ib., 558; Walker & Faulkner v. Walker, 7 Ark. 542; Porter et al. v. Doe on dem. Hanley et al., 10 Ark. 186, reaffirming the precedent cases; Baxter v. Brooks, 29 Ark. 173; Rector v. Danley, 14 Ark. 304.

It was gross error to permit the answer of Barnett to be filed, and still grosser error to overrule the demurrer thereto. Yell, Governor, etc., use of Conant & Co., v. Outlaw et al., 14 Ark. 621.

Parties could not question the decision. Ashley et al. v. Cunningham, 16 Ark. 168.

Right or wrong the decision was the law of this case. Supra; 13 Ark. 103; 11 Id., 151; 14 Id., 304.

D. H. Rousseau for Appellee.

As long as Sheppard v. Thomas, 26 Ark. 617, and Jones v. Doss, Ib., 518, remained unreversed and not overruled, they furnished the only rule governing contracts, so far as they fell within their principles and all property rights acquired under them must be governed by them. Rights thus acquired can not be taken away by subsequent legislation, or subsequent adjudication of this court changing the law. The law in force at the time of making a contract governs its obligation. 4 Wheaton, 122; 12 Id., 257; 16 Howard, 432.

If the contract was valid at the time it was made, by the law as then expounded, its validity cannot be impaired by subsequent judicial decisions. 1 Wallace, 175; 7 Id., 181; 8 Id., 576; 10 Id., 511.

Decisions of a court of final resort, reversing or overruling decisions under which property rights have become vested, are not retroactive.

OPINION

COCKRILL, C. J.

In the case of Sheppard v. Thomas, 26 Ark. 617 decided in 1871, it was ruled that a vendor's lien for unpaid purchase money, though expressly reserved in the deed of conveyance, was not assignable. That case was, in effect, declared to have been wrongly decided, in 1873, in the case of Campbell v. Rankin, 28 Ark. 401; but as the rule announced in Sheppard v. Thomas had, in the meantime, been changed by statute as to transactions occurring after its passage, the case was not in terms overruled. When the appellant here, who is the assignee of notes given for the deferred purchase price of lands--a lien for the payment of which was expressly reserved in the vendor's deed of conveyance--sought to foreclose this lien, the circuit court followed the case of Sheppard v. Thomas, and dismissed his cross-bill upon demurrer. He prosecuted an appeal to this court, and the decree against him was reversed. As the sale was made before the statute, and was not governed by it, the court, through Justice HARRISON, in delivering the opinion, expressly overruled Sheppard v. Thomas, saying that was the practical result of Campbell v. Rankin, See Taliaferro as Executor...