NOVEMBER TERM, 1886. 167 Hughey et al. v. Bratton et al. HUGHE Y ET AE. V. BRATTO N ET AL. CHANCERY PLEADING : Cross-compl ' aint against co-defendant on breach of covenant. A cross-complaint against a co-defendant, which seeks relief by way of damages for breach of covenant and presents no grounds of equitable cognizance, will not be entertained. APPEAL from Bradley Circuit Court. Hen. J W. TIMM, Special Juih,e.. STATE M EN T. Bratton filed his complaint in equity against Hughey. Strickland and Barne • tt, , ' alleging, in substance, that . he had pnrchaSed- of Hugliu and Strickland by parol con-traet, a tract . of land, of Aakh the y . placed him in possessiOn:and 'agreed to make" to bun i deed on demand ; that
168 SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, Hughey et al. v. Bratton et al. , he remained in possession three years, made valuable improvements on the land and then moved off to another county, leaving Hughey in possession, as his agent, to rent out the land and collect the rents for him ; that afterwards Hughey fraudulently conveyed his intereSt . to Strickland, and Strickland sold and conveyed the land to Barnett, who had notice of his (Bratton's) purchase and equity in the land. He prayed that the deed to Barnett be canceled, and Hughey and Strickland be compelled to convey to him. All the parties answered, and Barnett filed his cross-complaint against his co-defendants, Hughey and Strickland, praying for a decree against them upon their warranty of title for the amount he had paid for the land, in case the court should decree as prayed by Bratton. Hughey and Strickland demurred to the cross-complaint. The chancellor overruled the demurrer, found the facts as alleged in the original complaint, and decreed for Bratton and Barnett as prayed in their respeetive complaints, and Hughey and Strickland appealed. Wells & Williamson, for appellants. The findings of the court below, that appellee, Bratton, bought the lands from Hughey and Strickland and paid for the same ; that Hughey sold to Strickland and his assigns, with full covenants of warranty ; that Strickland conveyed to Barnett,. with like covenants of warranty, are all without evidence to sustain- them. The finding, also, that Barnett purchased, with full knowledge of Bratton's equities, was without sufficient evidence to sustain it. The length of time for which Hughey and Strickland and Barnett successively held the lands, without demand by Bratton for deed, or account of rents and profits, is strong indication that Bratton had in fact sold the . lands to
NOVEMBER TERM, 1886. 169 Hughey, or that he had at least abandoned all claim to it under his former purchase. 16 Ark., 271; 23 ib., 653. The decree on Barnett's cross-complaint was clearly erroneous. His remedy was at law upon his covenants of warranty. BATTLE, J. We find no error prejudicial to appellants in so much of the decree of the court below as is in favor of appellee, Bratton. The cause of action set forth in the cross-complaint of appellee, Barnett, cannot properly be made the subject matter of a cross-complaint in an action like this. A cross-complaint against a co-defendant, which seeks relief by way of damages for a breach of covenant and presents no grounds of equitable cognizance, will not be entertained. Trapnall v. Hill, 31 Ark., 345. So much of the decree of the court below as is based on the cross-complaint of Barnett is, therefore, reversed. A decree will be entered here in favor of appellants against Barnett, dismissing the cross-complaint of Barnett without prejudice, and for the costs incurred by reason thereof, and this appeal. In other respects the decree of the court below is 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.