Williamson v. Crossett

• Decision Date: 09 May 1896
• Citation: 36 S.W. 27
• Parties: WILLIAMSON et al. v. CROSSETT et al.
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

36 S.W. 27

WILLIAMSON et al. v. CROSSETT et al.

Supreme Court of Arkansas.

May 9, 1896.

Appeal from circuit court, Woodruff county; Grant Green, Jr., Judge.

Action by Benjamin H. Williamson and others against W. A. Crossett and others, partners as W. A. Crossett & Co. From a judgment for defendants, plaintiffs appeal. Affirmed.

In the year 1888, the appellants Benj. H. and Louis S. Williamson leased a farm in Mississippi to the appellees, W. A. Crossett and others, who were engaged in farming and mercantile business, under the firm name of W. A. Crossett & Co. The lease was for a term of five years, commencing with the year 1889, and the consideration therefor was an annual rental of $650, to be paid by appellees in November of each year during the existence of the lease. W. S. Martin, one of the appellees, who was a member of the firm of W. A. Crossett & Co. at the time the lease was executed, retired from the firm in 1890, and moved to this state. The rents for the first four years were paid, but in 1893 the firm of W. A. Crossett & Co. failed. Shortly afterwards, W. A. Crossett, the senior member of the firm, sent the following letter to B. H. Williamson: "Hernando, Miss., Jan. 29th, 1893. Mr. B. H. Williamson — Dear Sir: I write to inform you that it will be impossible for us to furnish hands and teams to work your place, which we have a lease on for this year. We have rented to Mr. W. B. Counts that part of the lands on the hills for four bales of cotton, and to a negro, by the name of John Floy, some land in the valley, for four bales of cotton. He is a good negro, and has nearly corn enough to feed three mules; and if you would go there at once, and see the parties, may be you could get them to stay. We have sold out our entire effects to Fulmer & Thornton, to pay our indebtedness; and it would be folly in you to try to make us keep it, for it would have to lay out, and we could not pay the rent next fall. And, as it is early, you can rent it out to some one else, and thereby lose nothing. Sorry we are in this condition, but can't help it. Yours, truly, W. A. Crossett & Co., per W. A. C." Williamson did not reply to this letter, but, soon after receiving it, he went down, and took charge of the place. W. R. Counts, who had rented a portion of the land from Crossett & Co., testified: "Some time in February or March, Williamson came to me, and told me that Crossett & Co. had failed, and turned him back the place." Counts thereupon requested Crossett & Co. to return the note he had executed to them, which was done, and he gave a new note to Williamson for the land rented. Williamson also rented a portion of the place to one Clapp, and tried to rent out the remainder, but failed to do so. He afterwards brought this suit against Martin for the rent of the place for the year 1892, less the amounts received by him after taking charge of the place. Martin filed an answer to the action, and alleged: "That early in the year 1893, the defendant firm of W. A. Crossett & Co. agreed with the plaintiffs that the plaintiffs might take and use the land during the year 1893, the consideration being that the defendants should be released from the payment of the rent for 1893; * * * that the plaintiffs under this agreement took charge of the land, and used and controlled it themselves during the year 1893." There were a verdict and judgment for the defendants.

Fletcher Roleson, for appellants. N. W. Norton, for appellees.

RIDDICK, J. (after stating the facts).

We need not discuss the instructions given by the learned judge to the jury in this case. In our opinion, he was justified in holding, as a matter of law, that the letter of W. A. Crossett & Co. to Williamson was an offer to surrender the place for the year 1893. The appellees, by that letter, stated to Williamson, in substance, that they were unable to furnish hands and teams to work the place which they had rented from him for that year, and advised him that, as it was early in the season, he could rent it out to some one else, and lose nothing. This could mean nothing else than an offer to surrender the premises to him. Williamson did not reply to this letter, but soon afterwards took charge of the place, and controlled it for the remainder of the year, without any notice to appellees tha...