Hughey v. Bratton
Supreme Court of Arkansas
APPEAL from' Bradley Circuit Court. Hon. J. W. Robb, Special Judge. statement. Bratton filed his complaint in equity against Hughey, Strickland and Barnett, alleging, in substance, that he had purchased of Hughey and Strickland by parol contract, a tract of land, of which they placed him in possession and agreed to make to him a deed on demand; that he remained in possession three years, made valuable improvements on the land and then moved off to another county, leaving…
Read the full summary
APPEAL from' Bradley Circuit Court. Hon. J. W. Robb, Special Judge. statement. Bratton filed his complaint in equity against Hughey, Strickland and Barnett, alleging, in substance, that he had purchased of Hughey and Strickland by parol contract, a tract of land, of which they placed him in possession and agreed to make to him a deed on demand; that he remained in possession three years, made valuable improvements on the land and then moved off to another county, leaving Hughey in possession, as his agent, to rent out the land and collect the rents for him ; that after-wards Hughey…
1Opinion of the CourtBattle, J.
We find no error prejudicial to appellants in so much of the decree of the court below as is in favor of appellee, Bratton. The cause of action set forth in the cross-complaint of appellee, Barnett, cannot properly be made the subject matter of a cross-complaint in an action like this. A cross-complaint against a co-defendant, which seeks relief by way of damages for a breach of covenant and presents no grounds of equitable cognizance, will not be entertained. Trapnall v. Hill, 31 Ark., 345.
So much of the decree of the court below as is based on the cross-complaint of Barnett is, therefore,…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Thompson v. BrazileSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1898