Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Baxter v. Young

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Decided February 17, 1959No. 5-1747Published

1ConcurrenceEd. F. McFaddin, Associate Justice

I concur in the result reached by the majority, but I am dubious concerning the authority cited for the modification. The majority says that Young is entitled to recover rent for only three years next before the filing of the suit because of § 34-1424 et seq., Ark. Stats., known as the “Betterment Act.” I have never considered the Betterment Act to be applicable in an accounting between co-tenants, or between those standing in such a relationship as appellant and appellee occupied in the case at bar.

My reason for limiting Young to rent for only three years is because Young’s suit is like any…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Brown v. BrownSupreme Court of Georgia · 1953
  2. Chambers v. SchallSupreme Court of Georgia · 1952
  3. Fyffe v. FyffeAppellate Court of Illinois · 1937
  4. George v. BullardSupreme Court of Georgia · 1934

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API