Rucker v. Martin
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from Mississippi Chancery Court; Bdward D. Robertson, Chancellor; To entitle defendant to recover for the value of improvements made, he must claim them in his answer. 75 Ark. 146: 15 Cyc., p. 234. No variance between the pleading and proof will be deemed material unless it misleads the adverse party. Kirby’s Dig., § 6140. The pleadings will be treated as amended to correspond with the proof. 29 Ark. 330; 62 Ark. 434.
1Opinion of the CourtFrauunthar, J.
This is an appeal from so much of the decree of the lower court as gave to the appellees compensation for the value of improvements made by them upon the land in controversy. The appellants instituted this suit in the circuit court for the recovery of the land, and in their complaint set forth their written evidences of title. The appellees filed an answer, in which they alleged that they were the owners of the land and took possession thereof under certain written evidences of title. In their answer they did not allege that the appellees had made any improvements or paid any taxes on the…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Texarkana Gas & Electric Light Co. v. OrrSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1894
- Railway Co. v. DoddSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1894
- Bank of Malvern v. BurtonSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1900
- McMurray v. BoydSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1894
- Carraway v. MooreSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1905
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by13 opinions
- Oak Leaf Mill Co. v. CooperSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1912
- Stolz v. FranklinSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1975
- Stacy v. StacySupreme Court of Arkansas · 1927
- Bates v. SimmonsSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1976
- Henson & Sons Coal Co. v. StricklandSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1922
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.