{
  "id": 1562513,
  "name": "LaCotts v. LaCotts",
  "name_abbreviation": "LaCotts v. LaCotts",
  "decision_date": "1915-05-24",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "558",
  "last_page": "560",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "118 Ark. 558"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "109 Ark. 335",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1341234
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/109/0335-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "97 Ark. 151",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "weight": 2,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "185"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "89 Ark. 509",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1515257
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/89/0509-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "75 Ark. 150",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "90 Kans. 196",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Kan.",
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "20 So. 660",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "So.",
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "122 Ala. 611",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ala.",
      "case_ids": [
        5698135
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ala/122/0611-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "97 Ark. 450",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1318842
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "540"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/97/0450-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "50 Ark. 190",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "117 Ark. 560",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "94 Ark. 329",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1545390
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/94/0329-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "94 Ark. 183",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1545398
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/94/0183-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 345,
    "char_count": 5866,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.44,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.185020004674869e-07,
      "percentile": 0.58993806202601
    },
    "sha256": "2c1dc89d506c9d36536c8aec684a708c69c990acfafa6242d6d2bcb3b08e32da",
    "simhash": "1:838ce0f877fe6e23",
    "word_count": 1020
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:53:29.321926+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "LaCotts v. LaCotts."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "McCulloch, C. J.\nThis is \u00a1the second .appeal in this ease. The 'former opinion is published in volume 109 of the reports, page 335, where the 'facts \u00a1are fully set out. It is a .controversy concerning the title to a quarter section of land situated in Arkansas County. The judgment of this court was 'that the decree of the chancery court be reversed \u00a1and the cause remanded with directions to enter a decree in favor of the appellant, George LaCotts, who is \u00a1the appellee in the present appeal.\nWhen the mandate of this court reached the chancery court, the present appellant, John A. LaCotts, who was the defendant \u00a1and cross-complainant below, filed a \u00a1supplemental answer \u00a1and cross-complaint attacking a decree in another cause which forms the basis of this title \u25a0of \u00a1appellee, George LaCotts, the land having been .sold to the latter pursuant to the terms of that decree, which was against John A. LaCotts. The Chancellor decided that the issues presented in the amended answer and cross-complaint had been .adjudicated by this court and sustained \u00a1a \u00a1demurrer to the same \u00a1and entered a decree in .favor of appellee, George LaCotts, in accordance with the mandate of this court. We are \u00a1of the opinion that the \u00a1Chancery court was correct \u00a1and that the former judgment of this -court was in fact conclusive of the questions sought to be presented in the \u00a1amended answer and cross-complaint. The action was instituted 'by George LaCotts, the present appellant, against John A. LaCotts, the present appellee, in which the \u00a1plaintiff asserted title to the land under the decree mentioned and sought to have his title quieted \u00a1and the defendant in that .action enjoined from interfering therewith. Defendant answered, attacking the validity of the decree under which the sale was made and also alleging that the plaintiff had \u00a1purchased the land and took the title thereto under the sale as trustee for the defendant and that the plaintiff \u00a1should be held to be \u00a1a trustee ex maleficio. The Chancery court decided the case in favor of the defendant, but on appeal to this court the decree was reversed \u00a1and, as before stated, the cause was remanded with direction to enter .a decree in favor of the plaintiff. Even if the question of the validity of the decree, which formed the basis of \u00a1appellee\u2019s title, had not been expressly attacked in the pleadings, it was necessarily raised for the reason that appellee\u2019s title was in isisue \u00a1and that \u00a1called for any attack upon the decree which involved the question of the validity \u00a1and strength \u00a1of appellee \u2019\u00a1s title.\nThe principles announced by this court in several cases are absolutely decisive of the present \u00a1case in appellee\u2019s favor. Chicago Mill & Lumber Co. v. Osceola Land Co., 94 Ark. 183; Gaither v. Campbell, 94 Ark. 329; Baker v. Hudson, 117 Ark. 560. According to the decisions in those cases, a reversal of a decree in chancery, with directions to the Chancery court to enter a certain decree, is conclusive \u00a1of all the issues that were presented in the case or that \u00a1could have been presented. However, as \u00a1a matter of fact, the record of original pleadings in the case shows that the questions raised in the amended answer and cross-complaint were also raised in the original 'answer and crosis-complaint. If \u00a1appears that appellant abandoned the attack on the decree by failing to take \u00a1any proof to sustain the cross-complaint, but that did not eliminate it \u00a1as an issue in the case, and \u00a1a decree of the chancery court or of this \u00a1court \u00a1on .\u00a1appeal, necessarily resulted in an \u00a1adjudication \u00a1of that question.\nAppellant also treats his plea as a bill of review in the former proceedings in which the decree was rendered under which the land was sold, \u00a1and has brought up the record in that \u00a1case and had it consolidated with this. It necessarily follows \u00a1that the last \u00a1decree of the chancellor, holding that the. judgment of this court bars any further inquiiy into \u00a1the title, eliminates the first \u00a1decree from the case, \u00a1and an \u00a1affirmance of the chancellor\u2019\u00a1s last decree is conclusive of the whole matter.\nThe decree is, therefore, affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "McCulloch, C. J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Samuel Frauenthal, W. N. Carpenter and J. M. Brice, for appellant.",
      "Botts & O\u2019Daniel, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "LaCotts v. LaCotts.\nOpinion delivered May 24, 1915.\nAppeal and error \u2014 reversal with directions \u2014 conclusiveness.\u2014The reversal by the Supreme 'Court of a 'decree in. chancery with directions to the chancery court to enter a certain decree, is conclusive of alii the issues thait were presented in the case or that could have been presented.\nAppeal from Arkansas Chancery Court; John M. Elliott, Chancellor;\naffirmed.\nSamuel Frauenthal, W. N. Carpenter and J. M. Brice, for appellant.\n1. The .appellant is mot estopped. The question ,of the validity 'and legality of the decree upon which the appellee, George LaCotts\u2019 title is based, was not passed upon or acted on by this 'court, on the former appeal. The question is not res adjudicata. 50 Ark. 190; lb. 338; 97 Id. 611; 21 Id. 364; 105 Id. 5.\nWhatever pleadings or matters were set up in the former case, they were simply a collateral attack upon the decree .and the issue here has never ibeen decided. 97 Ark. 450; 96 Id. 540; 75 Id. 1; 91 Id. 394.\n2. The question is not res adjudicata. 2 Am. & E. Ann. Cas. 650; 3 Id. 86; 8 Id. 773; 122 Ala. 611; 20 So. 660; 90 Kans. 196; 135 Wise. 38; 75 Ark. 150; 89 Ark. 509.\n3. The decree in LaCotts v. Gibson, is fatal, defective and void on appeal, or direct attack. 97 Ark. 151; 72 Id. 185; Kirby\u2019s Dig., \u00a7 4424.\nBotts & O\u2019Daniel, for appellee.\n1. The questions raised were settled on the former appeal. The matters are res adjudicata. 109' Ark. 335, 341; 105 Id. 493; 76 Id. 423; 94 Id. 351-2; 82 Id. 1; 94 Id. 332;, 184, 188; 43 Ark. L. R 424; 44 Id. 165; 106 Id. 295; 74 Id. 322; 91 Id. 394.\n2. The chancery court was correct in rendering judgment in accordance with the mandate of this court. 109 Ark. 335; lb. 525, 52; 106 Id. 292; 81 Id. 440."
  },
  "file_name": "0558-01",
  "first_page_order": 580,
  "last_page_order": 582
}