Weeks v. McClanahan, 5-1193

• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: MILLWEE; It follows that the court erred in assessing double damages in favor of plaintiff against the defendant
• Citation: Weeks v. McClanahan, 300 S.W.2d 6, 227 Ark. 495 (Ark. 1957)
• Decision Date: 11 March 1957
• Docket Number: No. 5-1193,5-1193
• Parties: Alton WEEKS et al., Appellants, v. P. McCLANAHAN, Appellee.

Page 6

300 S.W.2d 6

227 Ark. 495

Alton WEEKS et al., Appellants, v. P. McCLANAHAN, Appellee.

No. 5-1193.

Supreme Court of Arkansas.

March 11, 1957.

Rehearing Denied April 15, 1957.

Rieves & Smith, West Memphis, Giles Dearing, Wynne, for appellants.

Hale & Fogleman, West Memphis, for appellee.

MILLWEE, Justice.

This is an action by a tenant against his subtenant and landlord to recover damages in the form of double rent for the alleged willful and wrongful holding over of the rented lands after the term. For clarity the parties will be referred to as they were designated in the trial court.

The action was filed by plaintiff, P. McClanahan, against the defendants, Alton Weeks and J. O. Anderson. The issues presented by the pleadings were summarized by the trial judge in a preliminary instruction to the jury, as follows: 'Gentlemen of the jury, in this case P. McClanahan sues the defendants Alton Weeks and J. O. Anderson, alleging that [they] conspired and colluded together in wrongfully holding over 412 acres of land which this plaintiff says that he had rented from the defendant, J. O. Anderson, for the year 1952, and to which the plaintiff says he was entitled to the possession of for the year 1952. The plaintiff further alleges that the defendant, J. O. Anderson, wrongfully prevented him from taking charge of the proceeds of the crop produced by the defendant Weeks and wrongfully converted said crops to his own use and to that of the defendant, Weeks, thereby depriving him of his right to enforce his landlord's lien and of the fair rental value of said property.

'The plaintiff McClanahan admits that he was indebted to the defendant Alton Weeks in the sum of $1,164.75, and he admits that he was indebted to the defendant J. O. Anderson in the sum of $751.00.

'The defendant Alton Weeks denies that he wrongfully held over the 412 acres for the year 1952, and further denies that he conspired or colluded with the defendant J. O. Anderson to hold over said 412 acres for the year 1952, and further denies that he conspired with J. O. Anderson to defeat the plaintiff, McClanahan, in the enforcement of any of his rights and claims. He says that he had an agreement with the plaintiff McClanahan whereby he rented said lands for the year 1952 for the sum of $12.00 per acre. By way of cross-complaint against the plaintiff, McClanahan, he alleged that the plaintiff McClanahan is indebted to him in the sum of $1,376.75.

'Alton Weeks by way of cross-complaint against J. O. Anderson alleges that Anderson wrongfully refused to permit him to sell said cotton upon his request and that by reason of a later decline in the market value of the cotton, he was damaged thereby.

'The defendant and cross-defendant Anderson on the other hand denies that he colluded with the defendant Weeks or that the plaintiff McClanahan was damaged by reason of any conspiracy or collusion on his part and that of Weeks, and says that he should recover on his cross-complaint against the plaintiff McClanahan the balance due on his rent which he alleges is $751.00, together with interest at the rate of 6% per annum, which after the allowance of credits against the principal, amounts as of May 10, 1953, to a total of $936.60, for which he asks judgment against the plaintiff McClanahan. He also denies that he is indebted to the cross-complainant Weeks in any amount and alleges that they have had a settlement of their account.'

By agreement of counsel the issues were presented to the jury at the conclusion of a lengthy trial upon ten special interrogatories in answer to which that body found that for the year 1952 Weeks wrongfully and willfully held over the lands in question which had a fair rental value of $18 per acre and that Anderson conspired and colluded with Weeks in such holding over; that Anderson converted the proceeds of the crop of Weeks to the latter's damage in the sum of $1,148.97; that plaintiff owed Weeks $1,248.75 and Anderson $751; and that there was an agreement by Anderson with Weeks to return a portion of the rent paid by Weeks. In conformity with these findings the court entered judgment finding that plaintiff should recover from both defendants the sum of $11,051 which represented double the fair rental value of the land for 1952 less a credit already paid by Weeks; that Anderson recover from plaintiff the sum of $751 with interest to the date of a tender of the payment of the rent note by plaintiff to Anderson; that Weeks recover from plaintiff $1,248.75; and that Weeks recover from Anderson $1,148.97 for conversion of part of the cotton grown on the lands.

According to the proof presented by plaintiff, the 412 acres in question is part of a larger tract of 1,236 acres which plaintiff leased from Anderson for the years 1950, 1951 and 1952 at $11 per acre. Weeks had rented the 412 acres from Anderson in 1949 and was in possession when plaintiff took over under his lease in 1950. At Anderson's insistence plaintiff sublet the land to Weeks at $12 per acre during 1950 and 1951 with Weeks executing notes to plaintiff for said rents. On or about November 1, 1951, plaintiff advised Weeks that he could sublet the land to others for $20 per acre and that he would not renew the rent contract for 1952 on the basis of $12 per acre. Upon Weeks' refusal to agree to pay the increased rental plaintiff served a written notice upon him to quit the premises on or before December 31, 1951. About this time Weeks rented another large tract from another party for the year 1952.

Anderson was anxious for Weeks to stay on his land for several reasons and acted as his advisor and secretary in negotiations with plaintiff. Anderson was furnishing Weeks in his operations on these and other lands and held a mortgage on all his equipment. Under his lease with plaintiff Anderson had no control over ginning of the cotton but Weeks was required to gin all cotton at a cooperative gin in which Anderson was the principal stockholder and received a 'kick-back' or rebate of $6 per bale. In November, 1951, Anderson tried to purchase plaintiff's contract on the land held by Weeks for $1,200 but the offer was refused. Weeks stayed on and farmed the land without a contract with plaintiff until October, 1952, when...