Thompson v. Buchanan
| Decision Date | 20 May 1918 |
| Docket Number | 373 |
| Citation | 203 S.W. 1015,134 Ark. 276 |
| Parties | THOMPSON v. BUCHANAN |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Appeal from Sharp Chancery Court, Southern District; Geo. T Humphries, Chancellor; affirmed.
Decree affirmed.
The appellant, pro se.
1. The complaint does not allege that Sharp County had any lien on the lands. 50 Ark. 361.
2. The money paid satisfied only a part of the judgment. Appellee must show full satisfaction and discharge of the lien before he is entitled to subrogation. 50 Ark. 361; 90 Id 51; 96 Id. 594; 76 Id. 245; 34 Id 113.
3. Sharp County was not made a party to the suit. Appellee did not allege that he bought the land in good faith, believing he would get a good title. He knew that the execution and sale were void at the time he purchased. 50 Ark. 361; 56 Id. 563; 114 Id. 175.
David L. King, for appellee.
1. The judgment was a lien upon the lands. Though the execution sale was void, yet appellee's money was credited in the judgment, and appellant received full benefit of the payment. The judgment was satisfied pro tanto, and appellee was clearly entitled to subrogation. 50 Ark. 365; 29 Id 47; Freeman, Void Jud. Sales, § 51.
2. Full satisfaction of the judgment was not necessary. Appellant could not interpose such a defense; only the State or county. 68 Ark. 71; 69 Id. 43; Sheldon on Subrogation (2 ed.), § 128; Cent. Dig. Subrogation, §§ 44 96, 98. The county was made a party. Full satisfaction of the judgment was not necessary in this case and cases cited by appellant do not apply. Here appellee was not a surety nor in any way liable for the debt. 96 Ark. 601; 90 Id. 55. Here an innocent party paid his money in satisfaction pro tanto of the debt of another and is clearly entitled to subrogation. 114 Ark. 175.
3. The decree is right on the whole case, and should be affirmed. 43 Ark. 220; Ib. 553; 50 Id. 68; 64 Id. 236; 62 Id. 228, etc., etc.
STATEMENT OF FACTS.
Sharp County, for the use of district school and district road funds of said county, sued John W. Thompson, the ex-treasurer of Sharp County, for funds, which it alleged that he had failed to pay over. The county obtained judgment against him. Thompson's lands were sold to satisfy the judgment, and Buchanan was a purchaser at the sale, and paid for the lands purchased by him the sum of $ 1,525, which sum was credited on the judgment against Thompson in favor of the school and road districts of the county.
Thompson afterwards instituted an action in the chancery court to set aside the sale, and succeeded in so doing. He also obtained an order restraining the sheriff from making deeds to Buchanan, the purchaser at the sale.
Buchanan then brought this action against Thompson and Sharp County, setting up in his complaint the above facts and asking for judgment in that sum, $ 1,525 with interest (6 per cent.), and that he be subrogated to the judgment lien in favor of the road and school districts against Thompson.
Thompson filed a general demurrer to the complaint and also answered, denying the material allegations.
Upon a trial of the merits the court found that the lands belonging to Thompson were levied upon and sold on a void execution and that Buchanan was not a party to the original suit in which the judgment was rendered against Thompson, but was a purchaser of the lands at the sale under an execution issued on such judgment; that the sale was void; that Buchanan paid the sum of $ 1,525 to the county which was credited on the amounts due on the judgment that had been rendered in favor of Sharp County against Thompson as alleged in the complaint. The court further found that the liability of Thompson, upon which judgment had been rendered against him in the circuit court, was for a trust fund; that Sharp County as the original creditor for the use of the road and school districts had a lien by virtue of the judgment.
The court then rendered a decree in favor of Buchanan against Thompson in the sum of $ 1,525 with interest, and decreed that he should be subrogated to all the rights of Sharp County in the lands, which were described in the decree; and ordered that the same be sold unless the judgment was satisfied within 90 days. From that decree is this appeal.
OPINIONWOOD, J., (after stating the facts).
It was shown that the county obtained judgment against the appellant in the sum of $ 2,653.18. The appellant contends that the appellee was not entitled to subrogation until he had shown that he had fully satisfied the judgment in favor of the county against appellant, citing a line of cases which hold that a surety or one originally liable for the debt, a portion of which he has paid, can not be...
To continue reading
Request your trial