Court Opinion

ID: 7816293
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-09-07 17:37:23.050928+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:30:36.735203
License: Public Domain

George Rose Smith, J. (dissenting). I think the decree should be further modified by excluding the area lying within a five-mile radius of the city limits of Hot Springs. In view of the established breach of contract the appellee was entitled to injunctive relief with reference to the area within the city of Hot Springs. That phase of the case is not in issue upon this appeal. But the only way in which the appellee could obtain relief with respect to the area contiguous to the city limits was by proving, under Paragraph 7 of the contract, that Golden had worked in that suburban area for not less than ninety days during the last year of the contract. In my opinion the appellee did not meet this burden of proof. In fact, the complaint did not even allege such a cause of action. The complaint did quote Paragraph 6 of the contract, which embraced the territory within the city limits, but the complaint did not even mention Paragraph 7 (except that a copy of the contract was attached as an exhibit). As far as I can discover, the exceptional ninety-day provision by which the ambit of the contract could be extended was not mentioned anywhere in this case until the appellee’s brief was filed. There was no testimony that Golden worked for ninety days in this suburban area. In fact, the majority’s holding in this respect is really based upon a single question and answer in the course of Golden’s testimony: “Q. But for the last few months [before the termination of the contract] you had worked in the Hot Springs territory? “A. Right.” The plaintiff unquestionably had the burden of proving that Golden had worked within the suburban Hot Springs area for the minimum of ninety days required by the contract. Even if that fact had been alleged in the complaint, and it was not, the proof would still be-insufficient to establish the allegation. In view of the fact that the burden of proof was on the appellee, I cannot say that testimony that Golden had worked for a few months in the Hot Springs territory (which under the contract included the twenty cities listed in Paragraph 6) amounted to proof that he had worked for at least ninety days within every part of the area lying within a five-mile radius of the city limits. The appellant concedes the correctness of the greater part of the decree; he appeals only from that part of the order including territory contiguous to Arkadelphia, Malvern, and Hot Springs. In view of the fact that Hot Springs is by far the largest of these three cities, as well as being the appellant’s home, it is fair to suppose that the real issue on this appeal is the Hot Springs suburban area. Thus the appellant is really losing his appeal; I think he should win it. Johnson, J., joins in this dissent.