ARK.] COLE FUJIN. CO . V. JACKSON. 527 • COLE FURNITURE COMPANY V. JACKSON. Opinion delivered June 27, 1927. 1. JUDGMENT — CONCLUSIVENESS OF PRIOR JUDGMENT. — Where an • adverse,judgment has been rendered against lessees holding under written and Verbal leases _in an unlawful detainer case, such lesseeS could net in a subsequent suit litigate their rights in the property by rea s ' on of the . erection Of buildings on the premises, • since these rights were necessarily within the issues and might • have been litigated in the forMer suit. .APPEAL AND ERROR—CONCLUSIVEN ESS OF VERDICT. — The verdict of the jury on conflicting evidence is conclusive. • Appeal from Cross Circuit 'Court ; W. W. Bandy, Judge ; affirmed. • • • John S. Mosby, for appellant. S. A. Gooch, and Killough, Killonyib& Killough, for appellee. • • Smau, J. On January 1, .1914, B. J. Jackson entered into a contract of lease with H. L. and S. W. Cole, who were partners, doing business as the Cole Furniture Company. The lease covered lot 11 in block . 13 of the town of Trumann, and it was there agreed -that the Cole brothers, as lessees, should erect a business house on the lot and pay a monthly rental. of $20, and should have the right to use, and• oectpy, the building for the period of ten years, at the end of which time the lessees were to surrender possession of the building. ,The lessees erected a building, and, after occupying it for about three- years, they entered into a verbal contract with JaCkson under which tbey erected several smaller business houses. The
528 COLE FETN. CO . V. JACKSON. • [174 terms of the contract-under which these last and smaller buildings were erected are in dispute. The lessees insist that the contract 'provided that they 'should . have the free use of these buildings until the termination of the original written lease, and, *at the end of that time, should be paid the salvage value of the buildings. The lessees defaulted in the payment of the rent, and an unlawful detainer suit was brought by the lessor to recover possession. A judgment was rendered in that case, which recites that the defendants , announced not ready for trial, but that a • jury was impaneled, and, after testimony was offered, a•verdict .was returned in favor of the plaintiff les . sOr f ' or the possession of the property and for $855.12 as rent. . Later this suit was brought by the Cole Furniture Company, and the complaint alleged their version of the contract under which the additional buildings had been erected, and at the trial they offered testimony tending to sustain these allegations. Testimony was offered by Cole Brothers that Jackson had bonght certain furni-. ture at another store owned by them at Parkin; Arkansas, and that Jackson had failed to credit the purchase price thereof on the account between the parfies. This- WaS-denied by Jackson. • At *the conclusion of all the • testimony the court ruled,- in effect, that the judgment in the first suit Wa8' Conclusive of all the issues in centroversYexcept the purchase price of the furnituie, and . the jury *was •directed to find fOr the Plaintiff for the purchase , price of the fnrniture,.unless it Was found that the account . had been paid and settled, and that the burden was . 0h the defendant to show payment. A verdict was returned -in favor .the defendant, and' judgMent waS rendered •.accord-. ingly,.and this aPpeal iS : from that judgment.. • Several question'S . are raised' which we filid it unnecessary to discuss. The' court 'correctly held-that the first judgment was conclusive of the rights of the parties under both the written and verbal leases.- As the lessees might have litigated their rights to the lot and the
property thereon in the unlawful . detaine .r case, they are barred by the judgment there rendered from litigatT ing them in fhe .. second case., Gomell'Special,School Dist: No. 6 v. Bagyett, 172 Ark. 684490 S. W. 57.7. • The lessees cannot, in a subsequent case, litigate matters which were necessarily within the iSsues pre sented in the • first case. Nothing remained whiCh was not conclUded by the judginent in . the first case, - except the sale of ihe furniture, , and the ve -rdict of , the jiiry. at the trial from which this appeal comes is conclusive of that question. - • As no error appears, the judgment must be affirmed, and it iS so ordered.
You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.