Young v. Vincent

• Decision Date: 14 February 1910
• Citation: 125 S.W. 658
• Parties: YOUNG v. VINCENT et al.
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

125 S.W. 658

YOUNG v. VINCENT et al.

Supreme Court of Arkansas.

February 14, 1910.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Sebastian County; Daniel Hon, Judge.

Action by W. A. Vincent and another against D. J. Young. Judgment for plaintiffs, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Ira D. Oglesby, for appellant.

HART, J.

This suit was brought in the circuit court by W. A. Vincent, W. W. Bailey, and W. W. Bailey, trustee of the estate of J. H. Bailey, against D. J. Young. The plaintiff alleges that W. W. Bailey and W. W. Bailey, trustee of the estate of J. H. Bailey, were the owners of two lots in the city of Ft. Smith, Ark., and on the 12th day of December, 1907, by separate contracts in writing agreed to sell said lots to John Clark for the sum of $350 on deferred payments. Each contract provided that a deed should be executed when the purchase price was paid. On the 2d day of July, 1908, each contract was assigned by John Clark to the plaintiff W. A. Vincent. The complaint further alleges: "That D. J. Young, on or about the 1st of December, 1907, by his agents who were working for him and under his direction, entered upon said premises and carried away and converted to his own use a great amount of the soil belonging to said lots of W. A. Vincent, W. W. Bailey, and W. W. Bailey, trustee, knowing that the same was not on his premises at the time said depredations were made. That by reason of the said D. J. Young's unlawful entry upon said premises, and unlawfully carrying away the soil, there is now a large pit dug into the rear end of the two lots." Wherefore plaintiffs pray for damages, etc. The defendant, Young, filed a demurrer to the complaint, which was overruled. The defendant then answered denying the allegations of the complaint. There was a trial before a jury, and from the judgment rendered on the verdict the defendant has appealed to this court.

No bill of exceptions was filed or brought into the record. Where the record does not contain the evidence adduced at the trial, "every intendment is indulged in favor of the action of the trial court, and this court will presume that every fact susceptible of proof that could have aided appellee's case was fully established. The salutary rule of law is that every judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction is presumed to be right unless the party aggrieved will make it appear affirmatively that it was erroneous." McKinney v. Denby, 44 Ark. 74; Hempstead County v. Phillips, 79 Ark. 263, 95 S. W. 133, and cas...