Harris v. Smith

202 S.W. 244, 133 Ark. 250, 1918 Ark. LEXIS 229
CourtSupreme Court of Arkansas
DecidedMarch 25, 1918
StatusPublished
Cited by18 cases

This text of 202 S.W. 244 (Harris v. Smith) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Arkansas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Harris v. Smith, 202 S.W. 244, 133 Ark. 250, 1918 Ark. LEXIS 229 (Ark. 1918).

Opinion

HUMPHREYS, J.

Gilbert A. Smith obtained judgment against E. P. Harris for $234.17, on the 23d day of June, 1915, in the chancery court for the Fort Smith District of Sebastian County. On July 16, 1915, the Arkansas Valley Trust Company purchased the business and assets of the Fort Smith Bank & Trust Company, and one of the assets was a balance of $6,419.80, due upon a judgment which the Fort Smith Bank & Trust Company obtained against E. P. Harris in the Sebastian Chancery Court for the Fort Smith. District, on the 15th day of April, 1915. On account of the insolvency of E. P. Harris, Gilbert A. Smith instituted a suit in the Sebastian Chancery Court for the- Fort Smith District to set aside as fraudulent, the conveyance of certain real estate in Sebastian County by E. P. Harris and Lula Harris, his wife, to J. N. Ward, of date February 11, 1915, and the conveyances of certain real estate in Polk County by E. P. Harris to Caesar Wyss, of date May 29, 1915, and to Wyss Lumber & Trading Company, of date May 15, 1915; and to impound moneys deposited in the City National Bank of Fort Smith, in the names of Wyss Lumber & Trading Company and Lula Harris, as the property of E. P. Harris, for the purpose of subjecting the real estate and mon-' eys to the payment of his judgment. E. P. Harris, Lula Harris, City National Bank, Wyss Lumber & Trading Company and J. N. Ward were made parties defendant in the suit. The Arkansas Valley Trust Company joined in the suit by intervention. It adopted in toto the allegations of fraud in Gilbert A. Smith’s bill and prayed that the said conveyances of real estate in both counties be set aside, and, in addition thereto, alleged that Wyss Lumber & Trading Company was organized by R. P. Harris and Caesar Wyss and Minor Pipkin for the purpose of fraudulently taking over and holding without 'consideration the Eagleton mill and lumber plant and the property used in connection with the operation of same, which was purchased by P. P. Harris with money borrowed from the Fort Smith Bank & Trust Company, for which it later sued and obtained the judgment which is the basis of this intervention. The intervener not only sought to cancel as .-fraudulent the real estate conveyances in both counties and to subject said real estate to the payment of its judgment, but to cancel, as fraudulent, all transfers of per-' sonal property by R. P. Harris to Wyss Lumber & Trading Company and to subject said personal property to the payment of its judgment, also; and for that purpose made Caesar Wyss and Minor Pipkin parties defendant. Caesar Wyss and Minor Pipkin, although properly served with process, did not appear or answer. R. P. Harris, Lula Harris, Wyss Lumber & Trading Company and J. N. Ward filed separate answers, denying the material allegations of the bill and intervention; and the City National Bank answered that there was on deposit in its bank $4.20 in the name of R. P. Harris and $211.99 in the name of Wyss Lumber & Trading Company.

The cause was heard upon the pleadings, oral, written and documentary evidence, separate demurrers of R. P. Harris, Wyss Lumber & Trading Company and J. N. Ward, to appellee’s evidence, and a plea by R. P. Harris and Wyss Lumber & Trading Company to the jurisdiction of the court, filed when appellees closed their case. The court overruled the several demurrers to the evidence which raised the question of the sufficiency of appellee’s evidence to sustain the allegations of fraud in the bill, and overruled the plea to the jurisdiction of the court which raised the question of whether a suit could be maintained in Sebastian County to cancel conveyances of land located in Polk County; and, upon the whole case, found that the Sebastian County lands were conveyed to J. N. Ward by R. P. Harris and Lula Harris, his wife, for $9,300, and that J. N. Ward was a bona fide purchaser thereof for value; that the conveyances of the Polk County lands by R. P. Harris and Lula Harris, his wife, to Caesar Wyss and the Wyss Lumber & Trading Company, and the bill of sale of the stock of goods, wares and merchandise of the value of $1,500, from R. P. Harris to the Wyss Lumber & Trading Company, were all without consideration and made by an embarrassed debtor for the purpose of hindering, delaying and defrauding appellees and other creditors in the collection of their claims, and also found that the moneys deposited in the City National Bank in the name of Wyss Lumber & Trading Company belonged to R. P. Harris. A judgment was rendered in keeping with the findings, from which an appeal has been prosecuted to this court by all the defendants in the lower court, except J. N. Ward. The suit by appellees against J. N. Ward has' not been appealed from by either party. The cause, therefore, is before us for trial de novo, in so far as the findings and decree of the chancellor were adverse to appellants; and to the refusal of the chancellor to make any finding or order relative to horses, mules, wagons and harness transferred by Harris to Wyss Lumber & Trading Company.

Appellees do not insist in .their argument upon the exceptions saved to the refusal of the court to make any finding or order relative to the horses, mules, wagons and harness transferred by Harris to Wyss Lumber & Trading Company, so we regard and treat the appeal of appellees as abandoned.

(1) It is insisted by appellants that the Wyss Lumber & Trading Company was not properly sued in Sebastian County. This objection is not tenable for it filed an answer and thereby entered its appearance.

(2) It is insisted by appellants that the court, sitting in Sebastian County, had no jurisdiction to 'cancel deeds to lands in Polk County and subject them to the payment of appellees’ claims. The first and third subdivisions of section 6060 of Kirby’s Digest provide that •suits “for the recovery of real property or an interest therein, or for the sale of real property under a mortgage, lien or other incumbrance,” must be brought in the county where the subject .matter of the action, or some part thereof, is situated. Appellees insist that because the suit was brought in Sebastian County,- where part of the lands were situated, under the plain language of section 6060 of Kirby’s Digest, the Sebastian County Chancery Court acquired .jurisdiction over the Polk County lands. The construction placed upon the statute by appellees would be forceful if applied to a case where all the lands, though lying in different counties, were involved in litigation between the same parties, but certainly can not be true when applied to a case where the lands not only lie in different counties but also involve different parties defendant. In the instant case, neither Caesar Wyss nor the Wyss Lumber & Trading Company, grantees in the conveyances of the Polk County lands, had any interest whatever in the Sebastian County lands; nor did J. N. Ward, the grantee of the Sebastian County lands, have any interest in the Polk County lands. The conveyances were separate and distinct conveyances of lands in different counties to different parties. ■ There was no connection whatever between the transactions or conveyances. The validity of one was not dependent upon the other. The causes of action are as separate and distinct as the transactions or conveyances, and pertain to lands in different counties. For that reason, the lands in the different counties can not be regarded as parts of the same subject matter and the same cause of action.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Horn v. Horn
339 S.W.2d 852 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1960)
Drum v. McDaniel
222 S.W.2d 59 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1949)
Bell v. Wadley
177 S.W.2d 403 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1944)
Ryckman v. Johnson
67 P.2d 927 (Washington Supreme Court, 1937)
Chapman & Dewey Lumber Co. v. Bryan
35 S.W.2d 80 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1931)
Arkansas Mineral Products Co. v. Creel
27 S.W.2d 1003 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1930)
American Co. of Arkansas v. Wheeler
26 S.W.2d 115 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1930)
Bowen v. Frank
18 S.W.2d 1037 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1929)
Farmers' Mutual Fire Insurance v. Smith
222 N.W. 727 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1929)
Foote v. Blanks
5 S.W.2d 297 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1928)
Barham v. Federal Reserve Bank
5 S.W.2d 318 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1928)
Kosman v. Thompson
215 N.W. 261 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1927)
Home Life & Accident Co. v. Schichtl
287 S.W. 769 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1926)
Farmers' State Bank v. Foshee
280 S.W. 380 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1926)
Fidelity Mortgage Company v. Evans
270 S.W. 624 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1925)
Wilson v. Parkinson
247 S.W. 774 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1923)
Tunstill v. J. T. Fargason Co.
246 S.W. 856 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1923)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
202 S.W. 244, 133 Ark. 250, 1918 Ark. LEXIS 229, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/harris-v-smith-ark-1918.