Court Opinion

ID: 9772362
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 17:15:23.569409+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:31:43.682707
License: Public Domain

Ed. F. McFaddin, Associate Justice (concurring). I concur in the result reached by the majority, but I am dubious concerning the authority cited for the modification. The majority says that Young is entitled to recover rent for only three years next before the filing of the suit because of § 34-1424 et seq., Ark. Stats., known as the “Betterment Act.” I have never considered the Betterment Act to be applicable in an accounting between co-tenants, or between those standing in such a relationship as appellant and appellee occupied in the case at bar. My reason for limiting Young to rent for only three years is because Young’s suit is like any other action to recover rents, and is governed by the 3-year statute of limitations, which is § 37-206, Ark. Stats. In 54 C. J. S. 37, “Limitation of Actions,” § 124, the text states that the general principle — that limitations begins to run when a complete cause of action accrues — has bee,n applied to proceedings for accounting; and in Footnote 8 the text lists cases from Georgia and Illinois as applying this rule of limitations to accounting between co-tenants. These Georgia and Illinois cases support the text: George v. Bullard, 173 S. E. 920; Chambers v. Schall, 70 S. E. 2d 463; Brown v. Brown, 75 S. E. 2d 13; and Fyffe v. Fyffe, 11 N. E. 2d 857. Because of my doubt as to the applicability of the Betterment Act, I am compelled to concur; since I think the applicable statute is the rent statute, which is § 37-206, Ark. Stats.