{ "id": 8725365, "name": "Myers v. Snider", "name_abbreviation": "Myers v. Snider", "decision_date": "1956-10-29", "docket_number": "5-1055", "first_page": "849", "last_page": "852", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "226 Ark. 849" }, { "type": "parallel", "cite": "294 S.W.2d 495" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ark.", "id": 8808, "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 34, "name_long": "Arkansas", "name": "Ark." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "298 S. W. 353", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "174 Ark. 1072", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 8726204 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/174/1072-01" ] }, { "cite": "219 S. W. 28", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "142 Ark. 530", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1590499 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/142/0530-01" ] }, { "cite": "210 Ark. 277", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 8719753 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/210/0277-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 394, "char_count": 5994, "ocr_confidence": 0.499, "pagerank": { "raw": 6.087085966315723e-08, "percentile": 0.3771171601124235 }, "sha256": "cba2349fcb83679c3d1c85c4ff69b1c6e7904ef248d1bca302d3558d40422e37", "simhash": "1:dd81e78e422e8031", "word_count": 1039 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T14:58:54.393419+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "Myers v. Snider." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Ed. F. McFaddin, Associate Justice.\nIn seeking a reversal the appellant contends that: (a) the Chancellor\u2019s findings are against the preponderance of the evidence; and (b) the findings are inconsistent.\nWe give the salient facts: appellee, Snider, had owned for many years a tract of about two acres fronting on the basin cut-off of White River at DeValls Bluff. He was willing to allow some of his friends to have cottages on his land. Accordingly, on May 1, 1950, Snider gave appellant Myers an instrument reading:\n\u201cI agree to lease to Mr. George Meyers part of my ground at DeValls Bluff, Ark. to put a small house on for 5 years at 25 Dollars per year. I agree that Mr. Myers may move his building at any time from my ground that he may want to. This lease is not transferrable. This lease in carbon copy. Signed: Elijah Snider.\u201d\nMyers moved a cottage, 16 x 24 feet, on the Snider land and paid the required annual rent. Later Myers placed of record a \u201ccontract of sale and rent,\u201d dated June 13,1950, wherein Snider purported to sell to Myers the entire two acres for payments of $25 per year for 99 years. When he learned that Myers was claiming more than what was specified in the lease of May 1,1950, Snider brought the present suit, alleging that the purported \u201ccontract of sale and rent\u201d was a forgery; and, if not a forgery, then the contract was void for uncertainty and material alterations. The prayer of the complaint was that the recorded \u201ccontract of sale and rent\u201d should be declared void and cancelled of record.\nMyers asserted the complete validity of the \u201ccontract of sale and rent\u201d and, by cross complaint, sought the full enforcement of that contract. At the trial Myers admitted that certain parts of the \u201ccontract of sale and rent\u201d were never agreed to. We list his admissions:\n(a) The \u201ccontract of sale and rent\u201d definitely recited that if Myers paid $25 per year for 99 years and fulfilled all the other provisions of the contract then, at the expiration of the 99 years, Snider was to execute to Myers a warranty deed conveying the premises. Myers admitted that Snider never agreed to deed him the property, even though such language was plainly contained in the printed contract.\n(b) The \u201ccontract of sale and rent\u201d stated that Myers was to pay all taxes on the land, and upon failure to pay the taxes promptly when due, all of Myers \u2019 claims under the contract would be ipso facto forfeited. Myers claimed that there was no agreement requiring him to pay the taxes, even though the contract so provided.\n(c) The \u201ccontract of sale and rent\u201d described the property in Prairie County in this language: \u2018 \u2018 That parcel of land and appurtenances thereon now owned by Elijah Snider of DeValls Bluff, Arkansas, as per record title of said lands, and known as \u2018Snider\u2019s Pish Dock\u2019 \u201d Following said description someone attached to the instrument a paper, of sixteen typewritten lines, containing a definite description of certain property in metes and bounds. Myers admitted that such typewritten addenda had never been a part of the contract; and there was no satisfactory explanation of this addenda. Myers did not pray for reformation of the uncertain description in the original contract and the proof failed to establish that Snider owned \u201cSnider\u2019s Fish Dock.\u201d\nIn the light of the admissions by Myers, and in consideration of other evidence in the record, the Chancery Court found, inter alia: (1) that the \u201ccontract of sale and rent\u201d \u201c. . . is void because it does not express the agreement of the parties\u201d; and (2) that the \u201ccontract of sale and rent\u201d \u201c. . . was breached by the defendants in that they failed to pay taxes, and that as a result of such breach a forefeiture occurred . , .\u201d\nWe have carefully examined the record and conclude that the Chancery Court was correct. In praying that his possession and title be quieted to the premises described in the \u2018 \u2018 contract of sale and rent, \u2019 \u2019 Myers had the same burden as one who seeks specific performance. In Lacey v. Bennett, 210 Ark. 277, 195 S. W. 2d 341, we held that one seeking specific performance of a contract must prove (a) the essentials of a valid and binding contract; and (b) that he had at all times been ready, able and willing to perform his part of the contract. See also Fox v. Hutton, 142 Ark. 530, 219 S. W. 28; and Moody v. Kahn, 174 Ark. 1072, 298 S. W. 353.\nTested by the holdings in the foregoing cases, it is clear that Myers failed to show himself entitled to any relief. By his own admissions, the \u201ccontract of sale and rent\u201d \u2014 as to sale and as to payment of taxes \u2014 did not express the agreement that he seeks to enforce; so there was no meeting of the minds of the parties in regard to a valid and binding contract. Furthermore, even if we assume that the \u201ccontract of sale and rent\u201d was definite and binding, nevertheless Myers admits that he has entirely failed to perform his part of the contract as regards the payment of taxes: so he did not show himself to have been at all times ready, willing and able to perform the contract that he says was signed and acknowledged and placed of record. Without considering the other matters urged by Snider, it is clear that the Chancellor was correct in his decree.\nAffirmed.\nAppellant used this language in his points relied on: \u201cI. The decree itself reflects inconsistent findings of fact treating of the same essential matter \u2014 the lease \u2014 and prejudicially affecting substantial rights. \u201cII. The decree, based upon either set of contradictory findings of fact, is unsupported by any substantial, evidence.\u201d\nThis was the printed form of \u201cContract of Sale and Rent,\u201d being numbered \u201cForm 886\u201d, and being in general use in this State.\nAmong other relief prayed by Myers there was . . that cross-complainant\u2019s rights under said lease be quieted and confirmed.\u201d\nMyers\u2019 wife was a nominal defendant.", "type": "majority", "author": "Ed. F. McFaddin, Associate Justice." } ], "attorneys": [ "Alonso D. Camp, for appellant.", "Wood & Smith, for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "Myers v. Snider.\n5-1055\n294 S. W. 2d 495\nOpinion delivered October 29, 1956.\nAlonso D. Camp, for appellant.\nWood & Smith, for appellee." }, "file_name": "0849-01", "first_page_order": 873, "last_page_order": 876 }