Walker v. Shackelford
Decision Date | 12 November 1887 |
Citation | 5 S.W. 887 |
Parties | WALKER <I>v.</I> SHACKELFORD. |
Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Appeal from circuit court, Jackson county; R. H. POWELL, Judge.
W. R. Coody, for appellant. The appellee pro se.
Mrs. Shackelford had recovered judgment against Walker before a justice of the peace for the use and occupation of her brick wall. The cause having been removed by appeal to the circuit court, she again prevailed, after two successive trials, and judgment was entered in her favor for $199.20. The parties had been proprietors of adjoining lots, and the plaintiff had erected a brick building upon her lot. When the defendant came to build, he proposed to use her south wall as his north wall, thereby saving the expense of one entire wall. This wall stood upon the plaintiff's land, except that at one end it projected slightly over upon the defendant's lot, and it had been constructed at her own expense. For the privilege of resting his joists and beams upon this wall, the parties entered into a parol agreement, whereby the defendant, according to the plaintiff's testimony, was to pay Mrs. Shackelford $250 upon the completion of his house. According to the defendant's version, he was to pay her $225 for a half interest in the wall, when she perfected her title to her lot, by clearing it of a certain cloud or supposed defect. This was in the summer or early fall of 1883. Walker enjoyed the benefit of his contract until November 17, 1884, when the premises were destroyed by fire; but he has paid nothing. Shortly after the date last mentioned, the plaintiff sold and conveyed her lot to one Heller; and the defendant is now the owner of it.
The following direction was given to the jury at the instance of the plaintiff:
The following prayers of the defendant were denied:
In McLarney v. Pettigrew, 3 E. D. Smith, 111, the common pleas of New York decided that permission to insert beams in a house is nothing more than a license, and hence a promise to pay for such permission need not be in writing. But this is contrary to the weight of authority, both English and American, according to which a right to a permanent occupation of another's land cannot be acquired by a parol agreement. Such a right is an...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Bright v. J. Bacon & Sons
... ... 41, 20 ... Am.St.Rep. 646); and, when executed, it is not within the ... inhibition of the statutes of frauds and perjuries ( ... Walker v. Shackelford, 49 Ark. 503, 5 S.W. 887, 4 ... Am.St.Rep. 61; Rindge v. Baker, 57 N.Y. 209, 15 ... Am.Rep. 475; Pireaux v. Simon, 79 Wis. 392, 48 ... ...
-
Kuhn v. Poole
...or signed by some other person by him thereunto properly authorized. ¶3 Plaintiff in error cites and relies upon Walker v. Shackelford, 49 Ark. 503, 5 S.W. 887; Rudisill v. Cross, 54 Ark. 519, 16 S.W. 575; and Plunkett v. Meredith, 72 Ark. 3, 77 S.W. 600, to support his contention. These ca......
- Walker v. Shackelford