Williams v. Davis, CA
| Decision Date | 26 October 1983 |
| Docket Number | No. CA,CA |
| Parties | Drexel WILLIAMS et al., Appellant, v. Marlo DAVIS et al., Appellees. 83-44. |
| Court | Arkansas Court of Appeals |
David Hodges, Little Rock, and Dan M. Orr, Ash Flat, for appellant.
Murphy, Post, Thompson & Arnold by Blair Arnold, Batesville, and Terry M. Poynter, Mountain Home, for appellees.
Appellant, Drexel Williams, d/b/a Riverview Dairy, and Amel Haley entered into a lease agreement in 1973, whereby Haley was to operate a dairy business, including land, cattle and equipment owned by Williams. On July 24, 1980, Williams filed a complaint against Haley in the Circuit Court of Fulton County, Arkansas, alleging that Haley, without authority from Williams, sold 63 head of cattle belonging to Williams. At the same time, Williams filed an affidavit and bond for replevin asking for delivery of the cattle.
On July 30, 1980, Williams filed a complaint in replevin in the Circuit Court of Fulton County against Marlo Davis, one of the appellees here, alleging that Davis was in possession of the 63 head of cattle and unlawfully detained them. Marlo Davis then filed a third party complaint against appellees, Robert Threlkeld and Sammy Gresham, d/b/a T & G Cattle Company, alleging that Threlkeld and Gresham had sold the cattle in question to Davis and had warranted title to the animals.
An order was entered in Fulton Circuit Court on August 26, 1980, which provided that the cattle remain in the possession of Davis pending further hearing. The court also ordered Threlkeld and Gresham to deposit $25,000 as a bond to satisfy any judgment entered against them in favor of Williams or Davis.
The cases were transferred from Fulton County Circuit Court to Fulton County Chancery Court on October 26, 1981. On June 3, 1982, testimony was taken on the consolidated cases, and at a point in the hearing before Williams had completed the presentation of his evidence, the court allowed a continuance in order for the parties to attempt to reach a settlement.
On September 29, 1982, the attorney for Davis, Threlkeld and Gresham moved to dismiss Williams' action against them on the basis of an alleged settlement as to them. The trial court entered an order of dismissal, stating:
I am going to grant the motion to dismiss on the basis that the case was settled and I'm doing that to some extent because I think the complaints ... are of marginal merit.
It is from this judgment that appellant, Drexel Williams, brings this appeal. At the hearing on the motion to dismiss there was no formal taking of testimony. The entire record relating to a settlement consists of statements made by the attorneys for the parties. The authority of the attorneys to effect a settlement is not questioned in this case, and the reception of the statements by the attorneys as a basis for the court's decision is not made an issue.
The question on this appeal is whether the trial court was in error in dismissing appellant's complaint on the basis of what the court found to be a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Mckay
...elements of any other contract; the question of whether a settlement has been reached is one of fact.”) (citing Williams v. Davis, 9 Ark.App. 323, 659 S.W.2d 514 (1983)). In this case, the only disputed contract element is whether there was mutual agreement, i.e., a meeting of the minds. Sp......
-
Larey v. Allstate Prop. & Cas. Co.
...117 Ark. 524, 175 S.W. 1184 (1915). Under Arkansas law, settlement agreements are treated as contracts. See Williams v. Davis, 9 Ark.App. 323, 659 S.W.2d 514, 515 (1983). "[T]he first rule of interpretation of a contract is to give to the language employed the meaning which the parties inte......
-
Willis v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co.
...117 Ark. 524, 175 S.W. 1184 (1915). Under Arkansas law, settlement agreements are treated as contracts. See Williams v. Davis, 9 Ark.App. 323, 659 S.W.2d 514, 515 (1983). "[T]he first rule of interpretationof a contract is to give to the language employed the meaning which the parties inten......
-
Means v. Nelle Gertrude Berger Trust
...rev'd 140 F.2d 792 (8th Cir.1944) (holding the waiver was, in fact, supported by consideration). The appellant cites Williams v. Davis, 9 Ark.App. 323, 659 S.W.2d 514 (1983), for the proposition that a compromise and settlement is contractual in nature and to have legal validity must posses......