Case Name: Douglass v. Sharp
Court: Arkansas Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Arkansas
Decision Date: 1898-01-22
Citations: 64 Ark. 645
Docket Number: 
Parties: Douglass v. Sharp.
Judges: Hughes, J., absent and not participating.
Reporter: Arkansas Reports
Volume: 64
Pages: 645–647

Head Matter:
Douglass v. Sharp.
Opinion delivered January 22, 1898.
Ejectme'nt—Right to Possession—Payment eor Betterments.—Sandels & Hill’s Dig., §2 2590-1, provides, in substance, that an unsuccessful defendant in ejectment may in certain cases recover a judgment for improvements placed by him upon the land in controversy; that “no writ shall issue for the possession of the lands in favor of the successful party until payment has been made to such occupant of the balance due him for such improvements and the taxes paid; and [that] such amount shall be a lien on the lands, which may be enforced by equitable proceedings at any time within three years after the date of such judgment. ” Seld, that a successful plaintiff, who has not paid the judgment for improvements, cannot recover possession of the premises, although the three years allowed to the defendant for enforcing his lien on the land for such improvements have elapsed. (Page 646.)
Appeal from Drew Circuit Court.
Marcus L. Hawkins, Judge.
STATEMENT BY THE COURT.
The facts in this case are as follows: The appellants, A. L. Douglas et al., brought a former action against the appellees, H. J. Sharp et al., to recover from them the possession of certain land in Drew county. On the trial of the action in the circuit court, the land was adjudged to be the property of plain tiffs, but, the defendants having made improvements upon the land, the value of these improvements was assessed, and the court, in its final judgment in favor of plaintiffs for the land, ordered that no writ for the possession of said lands issue until defendants were paid the sums found due them for improvements. This judgment was rendered in- September, 1890. The plaintiffs did not pay the sums adjudged to be due the defendants for improvements, and the defendants continued to hold possession of the land. In November, 1895, over five years after the rendition of the judgment above mentioned, plaintiffs brought this second action against defendants to recover possession of the same land. It was admitted in the complaint that the defendants had not been paid for the impi'ovements. The circuit court held that the plaintiffs had no right of action, and gave judgment for the defendants.
Wells & Williamson, for appellants.
Section 2951 of Sand. & H. Dig. provides its own limitation, and hence is not governed by the ordinary period. By not resorting to a bill in equity within three years from the declaration of the lien for betterments, appellees’ lien is barred.
Z. T. Wood, for appellees.
A former recovery having been had in this case, this suit is not maintainable. Though appellees’ lien-right may be barred, being in possession, they still have the right to retain the land until their betterment claim is settled.

Opinion:
Riddick, J.,
(after -stating the facts.) We are of the opinion that the judgment of the circuit court should be affirmed. Although the three' years allowed the appellees in which to enforce their lien on the land for sums adjudged to be due them for improvements have now expired, yet, as they have not been paid for the improvements, they still have, under the statute, the right to hold possession of the lands and th.e improvements thereon. Sand. & H. Dig., § 2590, 2591.
There is little danger that the holding of the land by appellees will, as suggested by counsel for appellant, ripen into a title by adverse possession. For, as the appellants have no right to the possession of the land, at least so long as the improvements made by appellees remain thereon, unless the sums adjudged to be due appellees for such improvements have been paid, the statute of limitations cannot commence to run against appellants, and in favor of appellees, until such sums have been discharged, either by the use of the land or in some other way. Until that is done, the possession of appellees cannot be considered as adverse to the rights of appellants. Finding no error, the judgment is affirmed.
Hughes, J., absent and not participating.