Court Opinion

ID: 7811540
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-09-07 17:13:24.602179+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:30:29.162442
License: Public Domain

Hart, J. (after stating’ the facts). Counsel for the plaintiff seek to reverse the judgment on the authority of Latham v. First National Bank of Ft. Smith, 92 Ark. 315, and Gailey v. Ricketts, 123 Ark. 18. In those cases it wias held that where property is rented at the time it is conveyed, the right to receive the rent subsequently due passes to the grantee, unless the deed reserves the right in the grantor to collect and receive the rents. The case was tried before the circuit court sitting as a jury, and those oases would have been authority for the plaintiff if the finding’ of fact by the trial court had been in his favor. According to the testimony of the plaintiff himself, while the trade for the land was practically agreed upon in the summer of 1919, it was not closed until the deed was executed and the purchase price paid on the 26th of January, 1920. According to the testimony of the plaintiff, and of his son, payment of the rent was demanded of the defendants on the 26th day of January, 1920, and E. R. Norton, one of the defendants, told the plaintiff that he could not pay him the rent until he had procured an order to that effect from Wm. B. Schaefer. Norton himself says that he does not recollect definitely about this; but he was accustomed to paying the rent promptly as provided in the lease, in order to avoid a forfeiture of the lease. He paid Schaefer the rent for the year 1920 in order to avoid a forfeiture of the lease. According to the testimony of Schaefer, he had collected the rent before the deed was executed and the balance of the purchase price was paid by Sachs. The parties understood that the rent was payable in advance on the 15th day of January, 1920, and that Schaefer had collected it as a part of the purchase price before the sale was finally consummated. Some time in February or March, later, he made an assignment of the lease contract to S. & E. Sachs, as directed by Lewis Sachs. As we have just seen, the testimony for the plaintiff and the defendants as to when Schaefer collected the rent was in direct and irreconcilable conflict. The trial court settled this issue in favor of the defendants, and under1 the settled rules of practice in this State that finding cannot be disturbed on appeal. If Schaefer collected the rent when due, he did so before he finally consummated the sale of the land to Sachs. The question of parol reservation of the rent is not involved in this appeal, as contended by counsel for the plaintiff. The rent was payable on the 15th day January in advance, and Schaefer had a right to collect the rent when it became due. He testified that he did this before he executed the deed to Sachs. This had the effeet of severing the rent of the land for the year 1920 from the fee. It follows that the judgment must be affirmed.