994 HENRY QUELLMALZ LBR. & MFG. 'CO. V. BRINEY. [169 HENRY QUELLMALZ LUMBER & MANUFACTURING COMPANY v. BRINEY. Opinion delivered November 30, 1925. STIPULATIONS AGREEMENT TO ABIDE EVENT OF ANOTHER SUIT.L-ID case of suits actually pending, the parties may agree that . one suit shall abide the event of another suit-involving the same question. STIPULATIONS—BINDING EFFECT.—In an action for conversion, where another suit. was pending between the same parties, a'nd rights therein were to be determined . by the same contract,- a stipulation entered into in an action for conversion to' abide the result in another suit is conclusive, and the. court properly directed a verdict in accord therewith. , • -Appeal from Clay Circuit C4:lurt Western Distiict.; W. W. Bandy,.Judge; affirmed. STATEMENT BY THE COURT. • J. R. Briney sued the Henry- Quellmalz Lumber & Manufacturing Co., to recover the sum of $650, the value of 25,000 feet of oak logs alleged to. have been taken by the defendant and converted to its own; use. The defendant denied that the plaintiff owned the logs, and by way of cross-complaint alleged that it had bought the logs from Geo. A. Burr and W. 0. ,Poole wifhout knowledge of the plaintiff's right to the logs. The prayer of the cross:complaint was that, in case the defendant is held liable to plaintiff for the value, of the logs, the judgment should be against said Burr , and Poole. During the pendency of the suit the parties entered into a stipulation as follows: "It is agreed by and between Fuhr & Futrell, attorneys for the plaintiff, C. T. Bloodworth and Geo. A. Burr, attorneys for the defendants, F. G. Taylor, attorney for the plaintiff, that this cause abide by the deci: sion of the Supreme Court of Arkansas, or the chancery court if no appeal is taken, in the case of J. R. Briney v. Henry Quellmalz Lumber Co. et al., recently decided in the chancery court for the Western District of Clay County, Arkansas. • Q1)
ARK.] HENRY QUELLMALZ LBR. & MFG. CO. V. BRINEY. 995 "That this cause remain on the docket until such. time . as a decision is reached in said cause by the Supreme 'Court of Arkansas, or in the event an appeal is not taken to the Supreme Court and the decision of the, chancery court becomes final." The decree in the case referred to in the stipulation was affirmed in 157 Ark. 336, under the style of Henry Quellmalz Lumber & Mfg. Co. v. Briney. In that case Briney had sued the Henry Quellmalz Lumber & Manufacturing Co. for an alleged balance due him upon a written contract for the Manufacture and delivery of certain lumber. The suit was i defended on the ground that the defendant was compelled to purchase a title superior to that of Briney from Geo. A. Burr and W. 0. Poole,_who had a lien for the purchase money on the timber out of which the lumber was manufactured. The court held that, under the contract introduced in evidence, Burr and Poole were estopped from asserting a lien on. the logs. The contract recites that Burr & Poole had conveyed the timber to a trustee in bankruptcy and that Briney had purchased the logs, which had been cut, from the trustee. The court therefore held that it was.unnecessary for the Henry Quellmalz Lumber & Manufacturing Co. to purchase the timber from Burr & Poole, and the decree of the chancery court holding that Briney had title to , the logs was affirmed. The record shows that Briney acquired the logs in controversy in this case under the same contract as was involved in the chancery case, which was affirmed by this court as above stated. The circuit court directed a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, Briney, and only submitted to the jury the question of the amount of damages to be recovered by him. The case is here on appeal. C. T. Bloodworth, for appellant. F. G. Taylor and Robert Fuhr, for appellee. HART, J., (after stating the facts). The circuit court was right in directing a verdict for the plaintiff. The
996 HENRY QUELLMALZ LBR. &MEG. 'CO. V. BRINEY. [169 amount- and valne of the logs taken were shown. by . the undisputed evidence. The ruling of the court was based upon the stipulation which we haVe eoiiied in our-state-": ment Of . facts. Tho stipulation in express terms provides. that the case , at bar shall abide -by the decision of the: Supreme Court 'in the chancery case referred to in our statement of facts. It is well settled that, in cases of suits actually pen . ding, the parties may agree that one suit shall abide the event of another suit invOlving the same question. Web-ster v. Goolsby, 130 Ark. 141 ; Stone v. Bank of Commerce, 174 U. S. 412.; and Knott v. St. Lowis Sw. , Ry. Co., 230 S. 509.. . No contention.is made by counsel for. the defendant' that this is not the . law. His sole reliance'fOr a reVersar of the judgment is that the-issnes were net the same 'in the .two caseS. : Mre can not agree with cOunsel. ' in thiS' contention. As we have just seen, a judgment entered upon the 'stiptlation of the parties to a pending' suit'is in fact a judgment 13, 3 i consent. The reeord show§ that the' parties to both Suits are die same, and' in each' Snit' their rights are to be determined bY the swim cOntract. The' plaintiff in the present suit claimed the logs in each cas'e under the same , written 'Contract, -and the._'deferidant claimed' in' 'edela case' that under thiS contract 'Bart ' &' Poole had a lien on the logs, which waS superior to the title of the plaintiff. The defendant bought whatever title Burr & Poole had . , relying npon its being established in the courts as superior to that of the plaintiff. Hence the stiptlation was entered into between the parties that the present . snit should abide the result of the chancery suit. The decree' in the chancery case was affirined in this court, and this settled the rights of the parties in the present suit. The issues of laW in the two suits were precisely the same. Indeed it would seem that there was no use whatever in entering into the stipulation involved
in this suit if the title .to the logs was not to be determined by the result of the chancery suit. The.question of the value of the logs converted by the defendant was submitted 'to the jury. under ;proper instructions, and the finding of the jury on this point is supported by the evidence. - It follows- that the judgment will be affirmed.
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.