Court Opinion

ID: 9768904
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 13:55:30.723754+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:30:49.174623
License: Public Domain

George Rose Smith, J., on rehearing. In a petition for rehearing the appellee Gorman earnestly contends that we have abrogated the settled rule which requires a vendee-defendant to plead and prove the specific defect of title that he relies upon to defeat the vendor’s suit for specific performance. To support his position Gorman cites Bolton v. Branch, 22 Ark. 435; Walker v. Towns, 23 Ark. 147; Anderson v. Mills, 28 Ark. 175; Benjamin v. Hobbs, 31 Ark. 151; McGowan v. Smith, 68 Ark. 215, 57 S. W. 256; and Lone Rock Bank v. Pipkin, 169 Ark. 491, 276 S. W. 588. We adhere to the cited decisions, but we do not consider any of them to be in point. In two of the cases, Bolton v. Branch and Anderson v. Mills, the vendeedefendant attempted to cast upon the plaintiff the burden of showing his ability to convey good title. We held that the defendant had the burden of pleading and proving specific defects. In two more of the cases, Benjamin v. Hobbs and McGowan v. Smith, the vendee-defendant pleaded as a conclusion of law that the plaintiff had no title, and we affirmed the trial court’s action in sustaining a demurrer to that plea. In the other two cases, Walker v. Towns and Lone Rock Bank v. Pipkin, the vendeedefendant failed to prove that the plaintiff’s title was defective. The case at bar differs sharply from all six of the foregoing decisions in that here the vendee-defendants actually proved that the plaintiff’s title is not merchantable. Thus they discharged their burden of proof. The only remaining question is the effect of their pleading a conclusion of law instead of the specific defect relied upon. It is true that the defect should have been pleaded, and under the eases now cited the plaintiff might have challenged the faulty pleading by filing a demurrer or a motion to make more definite. In that event the defendants would presumably have pleaded the defect which they ultimately proved. But Gorman elected to join issue with the defendants’ imperfect cross complaint, by filing a responsive pleading in which Gorman denied that his title was not merchantable. We are still of the opinion that Gorman’s action amounted to a waiver of the flaw in his adversary’s pleading. Rehearing denied.