Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

102 Ark. 83

Soderman v. Bell

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Decided January 15, 1912

Supreme Court of Arkansas · decided 1912-01-15

Shaver, Chancellor; STATEMENT BY THE COURT. John Soderman instituted against Alice Bell and others a suit in unlawful detainer for the unlawful detention of the possession of certain lands in Clark County.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

reversed · Decided 1912-01-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently October 1971

7 state decisions

201912192019301940195019601970decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Kirby, J.,

¶1(after stating the facts). The reformation of deeds and other instruments. of writing upon allegations of fraud or mistake is a matter for the exclusive exercise of equity jurisdiction, and the court committed no error in transferring the cause to equity.

¶2The testimony was virtually undisputed that the land sold to appellant by appellee was, by mistake, not correctly described in the deed to him and also disclosed a correct description of the land intended to be conveyed as set out in the amendment to the complaint, and the motion to transfer the cause and the court erred in not reforming the deed accordingly.

¶3Appellee, Alice Bell, recognized appellant’s right to the possession of the lands conveyed to him, and immediately brought suit against her codefendants, the other appellees, who are not affected by this appéal, for such possession, that she might deliver it to him. He relied upon her doing so, and refrained from proceeding until after she recovered judgment for the possession of the lands and damages for the detention and accepted payment thereof and agreed to thq further continuance of possession by said codefendants, and refused to execute the judgment for possession for his benefit.

¶4The relief granted to her should have inured to his benefit, and she was bound to him for the payment of the damages recovered and other moneys, for rent of the lands, received from her said codefendants for unlawfully holding over and depriving her grantee of the possession of the premises.

¶5The decree is reversed and the case is remanded with directions to reform the deed in accordance with the opinion and to ascertain, by permitting the introduction of additional testimony if necessary for that purpose, the amount of damages recovered by appellee against said codefendants for the detention of the possession of these lands, as well as any money paid her by them for a further holding until possession was delivered to appellant under his writ of possession, and render judgment therefor for appellant against appellee, Alice Bell.

¶6It is so ordered.

/102/ark/83 · .json · Public domain