Reavis v. Barnes
Cases that cite this one
17 later published cases cite this decision.
- Judge v. Curtis (Ark. 1904)
- Tarheel Drilling & Equipment Co. v. Valley Steel Products Co. (Ark. 1960)
- McKay v. Millner (Ark. 1944)
- Bank of Marion v. Beck (Ark. 1940)
- Clemmons v. Byars (Ark. 1938)
- Lee v. Wagner (Ark. 1932)
- Rose City Mercantile Company v. Miller (Ark. 1926)
- Nohrnberg v. Boley (Idaho 1925)
- Gould-Galbraith Supply Co. v. Triplett (Ark. 1924)
- Bank of Commerce v. Tubb (Ark. 1923)
- Security Bank & Trust Co. v. Bond (Ark. 1918)
- Manilla Supply Co. v. Tiger Bros. (Ark. 1916)
- Imperial Valley Savings Bank v. Huff (Ark. 1916)
- Murphy v. Myar (Ark. 1910)
- Ferniman v. Nowlin (Ark. 1909)
- Beebe Stave Co. v. Austin (Ark. 1909)
- Barrett v. Nichols (Ark. 1908)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
Although the defendant when he bought the cotton from Kirby may have known of the plaintiff’s lien for rent, the property in it passed to him, and the money for which he sold it, as a matter of course, belonged to him.
The ground of the action for money had and received by the defendant for the use of the plaintiff is, that the defendant had received money for the benefit of the plaintiff under such circumstances as to create a privity of contract between him and the plaintiff. 2 Chit. Con, 899.
Had the cotton been tortiously taken, the money for which the defendant sold it, would have been received by him for the use of Kirby, and not for the plaintiff.
The plaintiff’s only remedy against the defendant, if under the circumstances he was entitled to any, was by specific attachment whilst it remained in the defendant’s possession, or after the sale of it, by suit in equity for the payment of the rent out of the proceeds.
The judgment is affirmed.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.