Court Opinion

ID: 9660948
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 22:24:46.306619+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:14:23.634395
License: Public Domain

Ed. F. McFaddin, Associate Justice, dissenting. I respectfully dissent from the reversal because I would affirm in all respects the Decree of the Chancery Court; and here are my reasons. I. The $2,000.00 For Improvements. This amount should be allowed the appellees under the doctrine of unjust enrichment; i.e., under the facts here, the appellants would be unjustly enriched to receive the benefit of the appellees’ labors and expenditures without paying therefor. In 46 American Jurisprudence 99, under the topic “Restitution and Unjust Enrichment” the rule is. stated: “It is a general principle, underlying various legal doctrines and remedies, that one person should not be permitted unjustly to enrich himself at the expense of another, but should be required to make restitution of or for property or benefits received, retained, or appropriated, where it is just and equitable that such restitution be made, and where such action involves no violation or frustration of law or opposition to public policy, either directly or indirectly. . . . Unjust enrichment arises not only where an expenditure by one person adds to the property of another, but also where the expenditure saves the other from expense or loss. . . . Among the particular situations and instances in which the application of the foregoing doctrines and remedies has been considered may be mentioned . . . the construction of improvements on the land of another, . . . ” The McEntires expended the $2,000.00 improving the property, not of their own volition but because they were required to do so in order to keep the property in workable condition. The testimony showed that the Cousart Drainage Ditch ran through the property, and the Cousart Drainage District had a dragline clean out its ditch and push the dirt back on the land here involved; and the McEntires were obliged to have a bulldozer spread this spoil bank over the land in order that it could be farmed. The $2,000.00 was expended in spreading out the spoil bank over the land and opening up the laterals and ditches so that the land could be farmed. The McEntires didn’t deliberately undertake these improvements. They were merely trying to save the usable character of the farm, and if this $2,000.00 item doesn’t come within the “betterment” decisions cited by the Majority, it certainly comes within the rule of “unjust enrichment”. I think the Chancellor was correct in allowing the McEntires the $2,000.00. II. Interest on the $3,100.00. I think the Trial Court was correct in allowing the McEntires interest on the $3,100.00. It is true that prior to the first trial the Vernons tendered $3,100.00 to the MeEntires, hut there is no evidence in the record, in either the first trial or this one, that the Vernons kept such tender alive. To offer the money is a tender; but the law requires that the tender be kept alive in order to stop the running of interest; I cannot find any evidence in the record in either trial that the Vernons ever kept the tender alive. In Abbott v. Herron, 90 Ark. 206, 118 S. W. 708, Judge Battle said, with regard to keeping tender alive: “It is true that he tendered to plaintiff fifteen dollars, which was refused. But this is not sufficient. ‘After a tender is duly made, it must, to preserve its legal effect, be kept good.’ Kelly v. Keith, 85 Ark. 30, 32. The defendant denied that he was indebted to plaintiff, but said he had tendered to him fifteen dollars. He made no offer to keep it good by paying it into the registry of the court or otherwise. He was content with having-made it at two different times. He did not renew it in his answer.” Since the Vernons did not keep the tender alive by paying it into the Registry of the Court or otherwise, then the MeEntires were entitled to interest as fixed by the Chancery Court.