Meehan v. Watson, 65 Ark. 216 (1898)

April 9, 1898 · Arkansas Supreme Court

65 Ark. 216

Meehan v. Watson.

Opinion delivered April 9, 1898.

Actions — Consolidation.—A cause of action on an account by a firm by a member of such firm against the same defendant, pending in the same court, under Sand. & H. Dig., § 5707, providing that “whenever several suits shall be pending in the same court by the samo plaintiff against the same defendant for causes of action which may be joined, or where several suits are pending in the same court by the same plaintiff against several defendants, which may be joined, the court in which the same may be prosecuted may, in its discretion, order such suits to be consolidated into one action.” (Page 216.) against a defendant should not be joined with an action to recover rents

Appeal from Woodruff Circuit Court in Chancery.

Grant Green, Jr., Special Judge.

STATEMENT BY THE COURT.

Appellants, Meehan & McGowan, sued appellee in the circuit court upon a mutual running account for an alleged balance due of $714.49, embracing transactions between the parties of about three years duration, amounting in the aggregate to over $4,500; and about the same time Charley Meehan brought suit before a justice of the peace for an alleged balance due for rents of $.199.53, which cause was brought into the circuit court by appeal by the appellant, Chas. Meehan.

At the August term of the Woodruff circuit court, 1895, at which term said suits stood for trial, appellee filed an answer to appellant’s complaint, denying the indebtedness alleged and stating that upon a fair accounting the balance would be in his favor.

Appellee, by way of counter-claim and cross-complaint, stated that Charles Meehan and John W. McGowan were partners under the firm name of Meehan & McGowan, and as such carried on a general mercantile business, and each of them were engaged in farming and renting land in their individual capacity; that for three years appellee rented land from Charles Meehan, obtaining supplies from the firm of Meehan & McGowan and delivering to them all the products of his farming operations to be applied in the payment of rents for each year, the balance to be applied to the payment of his supply account; that, during the time of doing business with said parties, appellee did a large amount of improvement, and performed labors for Charles Meehan, at his request, amounting to over five hundred dollars; that the account between appellee and appellants, in their individual character and as a firm, were kept by the firm of Meehan & McGowan, and that the firm account and the individual account were so intermingled as to render them intricate, and so confused as to make it impossible for appellee to obtain adequate relief in a court of law; that there had never been a settlement of the matters of account between the parties; that said Charles Meehan had struck an arbitrary balance in his favor of $199.53, to prevent appellee from pleading a set-off of proceeds of crops against the rents, which crops and produce had been received by the firm and misappropriated to the account of Meehan & McGowan. Appellee further alleged that the produce delivered.to Meehan & McGowan for the payment of rents was more than sufficient to pay all the rents due; that many of the items charged to appellee in the account of Meehan & McGowan should have been charged to Charles Meehan, being furnished for the improvements made on his farm; and the items of loaned money were usurious and fraudulent, being for more than ten per cent, per annum interest. Appellee prayed in his cross-complaint that the case of Meehan & McGowan and the case of Charles Meehan be consolidated and transferred to the equity docket, and that an account be taken and stated between the parties, and that the account of Meehan & McGowan be purged of all the usurious items, and the appellee have judgment for all items which may be due him from Charles Meehan and from Meehan & McGowan, and for general relief.

After heai’ing the motion to transfer to equity, the court ordered that the two cases be consolidated and transferred to the equity docket.

The appellants failing to deny the cross-complaint, the court directed a reference to the master to state the account between the two parties.

Norton & Prewittt, for appellants.

.Where the amount in controversy is above the amount of the jurisdiction of a justice of the peace, the circuit court acquires no jurisdiction on appeal. 57 Ark. 257; 48 Ark. 353. It was error to consolidate the Causes, because there was a diversity of parties plaintiff. Sand. & II. Dig., § 5763, et seq. It is intricacy and complication of accounts that justifies the assumption of jurisdiction by the chancellor. 48 Ark. 426.

J. N. Cypert, for appellee.

The intricacy and complication of accounts was such as to give a court of equity jurisdiction. 48 Ark. 426.

Hughes, J.,

(after stating the facts.) Section 5707 of Sandels & Hill's Digest provides that “whenever several suits shall be pending in the same court by the same plaintiff against the same defendant, for causes of action which may be joined, or where several suits are pending in the same court by the same plaintiff against several defendants, which may be joined, the court in which the same may be prosecuted may, in its dis•cretion, order such suits to be consolidated into one action.”

We do not think this case comes within the above statute, because the plaintiffs are not the same in the two eases, and the issues are not the same. We think the court erred in ordering the two cases consolidated.

Eeversed and remanded, with directions to try these cases separately.