ARK.] FELDMAN V. FELDMAN. 1097 FELDMAN V. FELDMAN. Opinion delivered November 1, 1926. 1. PLEADING—TITLE OF PLEADING.—A statement of facts donstituting a cause of action is sufficient to give the - court jurisdiction, whether entitled a complaint or an affidavit. 2. REPLEVIN—SUFFICIENCY OF COMPLAINT.—A coMplaint cOntaining a sufficient description and value of the goods, alleging that plaintiff is entitled to possession and that defendant is in unlaWful possession, is sufficient to give the court jurisdiction over the sub-ject-matter, under Crawford & Moses' Dig., § 8640. 3. REPLEVIN—DIRECTION OF VERDICT.—Where the undisputed testj.- mony established that a highway unloading equipment, built as part of a barn and attached thereto by bolts, was a fixture which passed by deed to plaintiff, it having been removed by defend-. ant, it was not error to direct the jury to aacertain the value of the equipment and return a verdict for plaintiff for possession of the property or its value. .4. JUSTICES OF THE PEACE —JURISDICTION.—A ,fixture detached from a barn by defendant became personal property in his possession, and a suit to recover same was within the jurisdiction of a jua-tice of the peace,
1098 FELDMAN V. FELDMAN. [171 Appeal from -Clay Circuit Court, Eastern •District; W. W. Bandy, Judge; affirmed. • •
Ward ce Ward; for appellant. Holifield & Irvin, for appellee. • ' • • • - Woor;, J. ' This action was instituted by the•Plaintiff, Bessie Feldman, against the defendant, David Feldman, in the justice court; as 'follows "The plain- tiff, Beisie Feldman, states that she is entitled to the possession of the following 'property, to-wit: 48 feet of hay-track used in barn Of the . -Value of 25 cts. per focit ." $12.00 Twenty-five hangers support track 3.00 Hay harpoon of the value of ' 5.00 Two pulleys Of the value of $1.25 each 2.50 150 feet of rope, one-inch 8.00 Hay carriage 10.00 One stop , 2.25 One hay trip .75 "of which the defendant unlawfully has possession without right, and which he unlawfully detains from the plaintiff. Wherefore, the plaintiff prays judgment for the recovery of said property, and for ten dollars damages for :the detention thereof, and for other relief." The defendant moved in the justice court, and also in the circuit court to which the cause was appealed, to ,quash the order of delivery and to dismiss the cause on .the ground that the affidavit, or complaint, and the order of delivery did not sufficiently describe the property. The trial court sustained the motion, and quashed the order of delivery, but overruled the motion to dismiss the • cause. To this ruling the defendant duly excepted. The facts are substantially as follows: The defendant, by warranty deed, conveyed to the plaintiff a tract of land on which a barn was located. In this barn was an apparatus for unloading hay. It , consisted of 48 feet of track, 25 hangers, a hay harpoon, two pulleys, a hay carriage, one stop, and 150 feet of rope. This equipment was necessary to. unload hay into the barn, and waifaitened to the barn by bolts, tlfe -hangefs being—
• ARK.] FELDMAN V. FELDMAN. 1099 bolted to the rafters, the hooks connected with the hangers,. and . the -track was also connected. 'with the hangers. . On- the .track the. carriage: was 'placed, • and all these: tools constituted a hay-unloading outfit which had: to. be- used all together.in, order to .effectuate the unloading .of: the _hay." .,The barn was constructed With the view . of installing , this equipment fOr unloading the. hay. When the defendant carried the equipment away, he had to unscrew parts of it from the barn. The defendant Was asked, among others; the following question :, "Yon -and she -neVer h'ad- any agreement -that you were. to haVe this stuff? A. It was Stuff that I was to haVe. I . was 'to have everything outside -of the house but what' wag Mentioned: What she was te have outside of . the house -Was -mentiOned. She was to have the landthat real estate 'the barn-was on and the house.' , Q.: There v&S no special agreeMent that you were to have the track. -and• stuff in the bail'"? A. Agreed that I was to haVe eVerything but what was mentioned; • that sto'ck and cattle and horses. I was to have everything else. We talked about this, and I told her I wanted to -trade this to her for the useof the, barn." The defendant _fur ther testified that , a written:contract. was made between him and the plaintiff on October 3, 1923. He stated that. there was a verbal contract made at the same time. • They talked about. it. :Defendant stated ,to the plaintiff; "I will give .you the whole hay outfit if you Will 10 me use half of the barn." :Plaintiff. replied, "N : o, I won't— the rope is worn out _anyway. I don't want you to have anything -more:to do with It." The rest, of the contract was reduced to _writing.. Everything , outside of' the house' that was: mentioned . she was to have, and everything not _mentioned in the contract . was to be.-- defendant's. This alleged written contract is not in evi-. dence. The . only written contract jn the reCord is the deed above referred . to,..executed. Noirember .1923. This deed,- as above stated, conveys the land. on which the barn is situated; and contains the following recital: "This deed is made as a division of real estate in settle-
1100 FELDMAN V. FELDMAN. [171 ment of property rights between David and Bessie Feldman, in a suit in the chancery court for the Eastern District of Clay County, Arkansas." The lands are described, and the habendum clause recites, "To have and to hold the same unto the said Bessie Feldman and her heirs and assigns forever, with all appurtenances thereunto belonging." The trial court instructed the jury, in effect, that the property in controversy was a fixture and therefore a part of the real estate, and directed the jury to find the value of the property and to return their verdict in favor of the plaintiff for such value. The defendant duly excepted to the ruling of the court in giving this instruction. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff for the possession of the property, except the rope, and fixed the value thereof at the sum of $25. Judgment was entered in favor of the plaintiff, from which is this appeal. 1. The court did not err in refusing to quash the affidavit or complaint, and did not err in refusing to dismiss the cause of action. Where there is a statement of the facts constituting the cause of action, whether the complaint be designated as an affidavit or complaint, it is sufficient to give the court jurisdiction. Climer v. Aylor, 123 Ark. 510. The affidavit or complaint filed before the justice court has been duly brought into this record by certiorari, and is set forth above. The instrument set out above designated affidavit or complaint contains a sufficient description of the goods in controversy and their value, and alleged that the plaintiff was entitled to possession thereof, and that the defendant was in ...unlawful possession and unlawfully detained,the same, and the plaintiff prayed judgment for the recovery thereof. This complaint was sufficient to give the court jurisdiction of the subject-matter to determine rights of property between the parties, under § 8640, C. & M. -Digest.— See Sehattler v. Heiman, 85 Ark, 73,-and-cases-there cited.
ARK.] 1101 2. There was no error in the ruling of the court in directing the jury to ascertain the value of the property from the testimony and to return a verdict in favor of the appellee for the possession of the property, or its value. The courf was justified in finding from the undisputed testimony that the property in controversy , was a fixture. The undisputed testimony shows that the barn was built with a view of having the hay-unloading equipment made a part thereof ; that this eqnipment was attached to the barn by bolts, and was a part of the permanent structure. The court therefore ruled correctly in holding that it was a fixture and passed to the appellee by the deed to the land. 3. When the appellant detached and removed the property in controversy, it was thereafter personal property in his possession, and appellee's suit to recover the same was within the jurisdiction of the justice court. The record presents no error in the rulings Of tile trial court, and its judgment is therefore 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.