Court Opinion

ID: 6543489
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-07-19 22:17:42.277146+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:55:54.000663
License: Public Domain

Riddick, J., (after stating the facts.) The only question in this case is whether, in the settlement between Passmore and the county, he should be charged with the actual rents received by him after the decree fixing the value of the improvements, or with only the rental value of the lot as it would be without the improvements. Passmore contends that he should only be charged with ground rents, or the rental value of the lot apart from the improvements, and to support that contention he relies upon the opinion of this court in State v. Baxter, 50 Ark. 455, and the decree made by the circuit court in obedience to said opinion. The following direction for a decree was given by this court in that case : “In charging the appellees with the rental value of the block, they should be charged with such rents and profits as it would have yielded without the improvements, and credited with the value of the improvements at the time of their recovery for the use of the county. If anything be due any one of the appellees for improvements, after deducting the rents for which he is charged, he should not be dispossessed until the amount so due is paid.” The decree that was made in obedience to this opinion adjudged that the lot and the improvements thereon belonged to Garland county, settled the matter of rents and improvements between Passmore and' the county on the basis directed by this court as set out above, and declared that Passmore had a lien on the lot for a certain amount due him for improvements. Passmore then had only a lien and a right to hold possession of the lot and the improvements thereon until he was paid for the improvements, or until the rental value thereof should equal the amount due him for improvements. His position after the decree was similar to that of a mortgagee who takes possession of the mortgaged premises before foreclosure. The rents received by him after the decree belonged to the county, and should be applied to the payment of his lien for the improvements. Passmore, after remaining in possession for some years, brought this suit in equity to enforce his lien. This he had the right to do, but the statute provides that “in any such equitable proceedings the court may allow to the owner of the lands, as a set off against the value of such improvements and taxes, the value of all rents accruing after the date of the judgment in which it has been allowed.” Sand. & H. Dig. sec. 2593. As the county had been charged with the value of the improvements, we see no reason why Passmore should not be charged with all rents received by him after the decree fixing the value of his improvements, and we find nothing in that decree, or in the opinion in State v. Baxter, that seems to us in conflict with this view. We conclude, therefore, that the chancellor erred in holding that Passmore should be charged with only the rental value of the lot apart from the improvements. The decree of the chancery court is reversed, and cause remanded, with an order that Passmore be charged with all rents received by him after the decree.