Kilgore Lumber Co. v. Halley

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Kilgore Lumber Co. v. Halley

215 S.W. 653, 140 Ark. 448, 1919 Ark. LEXIS 131

CourtSupreme Court of Arkansas

DecidedNovember 10, 1919

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 215 S.W. 653 (Kilgore Lumber Co. v. Halley) 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

Kilgore Lumber Co. v. Halley, 215 S.W. 653, 140 Ark. 448, 1919 Ark. LEXIS 131 (Ark. 1919).

Pincite

Opinion

HART, J.,

(after stating the facts). (1-3) The court erred in sustaining a demurrer to the complaint. The rule is that if the facts stated in the complaint, together with every reasonable inference therefrom, constitute a cause of action, the demurrer should be overruled. Cox v. Smith, 93 Ark. 371, and Sallee v. Bank of Corning, 122 Ark. 502. In the. application of this rule to the facts stated in the complaint it can not be said that no cause of action is stated. It is fairly inferable from the language of the complaint that the parties entered into a contract for the purchase and sale of the timber on 600 acres of land at a stated sum and that the plaintiff agreed to furnish an additional sum of money for the purpose of placing a mill on the timber lands. It was further agreed between the parties that the defendant should secure the indebtedness due by him to the plaintiff by a mortgage on the mill and timber. Where the terms of a contract are agreed upon orally the. same become effective, although it is further agreed that the terms of the undertaking are to be embodied subsequently in a written instrument and signed. Emerson v. Stevens Gro. Co., 95 Ark. 421; Friedman v. Schleuter, 105 Ark. 580; Sheen v. Ellis, 105 Ark. 513, and Alexander-Amberg & Co. v. Hollis, 115 Ark. 589.

(4) According to the allegations of the complaint, the plaintiff furnished the defendant an additional amount of money for the purpose of erecting a mill on the timber lands, and pursuant to the contract the defendant entered into possession of the lands and erected the mill thereon with the money furnished by the plaintiff. This constituted such performance of the contract as to take it out of the statute of frauds. Moore v. Gordon, 44 Ark. 334.

It follows that the court erred in sustaining a demurrer to the complaint and in dismissing the plaintiff’s complaint for want of equity. For that error the decree will be reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings according to the principles of law and equity and not inconsistent with this opinion.

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

HART, J.,

(after stating the facts). (1-3) The court erred in sustaining a demurrer to the complaint. The rule is that if the facts stated in the complaint, together with every reasonable inference therefrom, constitute a cause of action, the demurrer should be overruled. Cox v. Smith, 93 Ark. 371, and Sallee v. Bank of Corning, 122 Ark. 502. In the. application of this rule to the facts stated in the complaint it can not be said that no cause of action is stated. It is fairly inferable from the language of the complaint that the parties entered into a contract for the purchase and sale of the timber on 600 acres of land at a stated sum and that the plaintiff agreed to furnish an additional sum of money for the purpose of placing a mill on the timber lands. It was further agreed between the parties that the defendant should secure the indebtedness due by him to the plaintiff by a mortgage on the mill and timber. Where the terms of a contract are agreed upon orally the. same become effective, although it is further agreed that the terms of the undertaking are to be embodied subsequently in a written instrument and signed. Emerson v. Stevens Gro. Co., 95 Ark. 421; Friedman v. Schleuter, 105 Ark. 580; Sheen v. Ellis, 105 Ark. 513, and Alexander-Amberg & Co. v. Hollis, 115 Ark. 589.

(4) According to the allegations of the complaint, the plaintiff furnished the defendant an additional amount of money for the purpose of erecting a mill on the timber lands, and pursuant to the contract the defendant entered into possession of the lands and erected the mill thereon with the money furnished by the plaintiff. This constituted such performance of the contract as to take it out of the statute of frauds. Moore v. Gordon, 44 Ark. 334.

It follows that the court erred in sustaining a demurrer to the complaint and in dismissing the plaintiff’s complaint for want of equity. For that error the decree will be reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings according to the principles of law and equity and not inconsistent with this opinion.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

215 S.W. 653, 140 Ark. 448, 1919 Ark. LEXIS 131, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kilgore-lumber-co-v-halley-ark-1919.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack