Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Vincent v. Independent Gin Corp.
Citations: 218 Ark. 534; 237 S.W.2d 486; 1951 Ark. LEXIS 378Docket: 4-9429
Court: Supreme Court of Arkansas; March 19, 1951; Arkansas; State Supreme Court
In October 1948, L. O. Vincent and R. L. Cole purchased a gin from H. O. Moody and operated it in McClelland, Arkansas. They later sold the gin to Independent Gin Corporation for $65,000, with Vincent agreeing to gin all cotton he produced at the sold gin, contingent on competitive pricing and satisfactory service. The sale deed included a clause preventing Vincent from ginning elsewhere for five years, provided the conditions were met. However, in fall 1949, Vincent only ginned a small portion of his cotton at the Independent Gin, using other gins instead. As a result, the Independent Gin Corporation filed suit on November 15, 1949, seeking an injunction to enforce the contract and damages of $2,400. Vincent responded with a general denial. The court ruled in favor of the appellee, ordering Vincent to gin all his cotton at the Independent Gin for five years, contingent on satisfactory service and pricing. The court denied the appellee's claim for damages due to Vincent's non-compliance. Both parties appealed, with Vincent arguing the case was improperly in equity and challenging the denial of a transfer to law. The court upheld that equity had jurisdiction as the appellee sought both damages for past breaches and an injunction against future breaches, affirming the validity of maintaining both claims concurrently. The injured party holds two distinct and mature rights of action, allowing both to be pursued in equity to avoid multiple lawsuits. A court of equity can grant relief by injunction and award damages. Valid land use restrictions, made via contract during conveyance, can be enforced through injunction if they are not against public policy and if violations, such as selling gasoline, are ongoing and reasonable. The court confirmed its authority to intervene when legal remedies are uncertain or multiple suits arise. The evidence supported the chancellor's finding that the services provided were satisfactory and the contract valid. While the court correctly enjoined future breaches, it erred by not awarding damages for past breaches. The damages for 274 bales not ginned at the appellee's facility were calculated at $2.13 per bale, totaling $583.62. The decree is affirmed on the direct appeal but reversed on the cross-appeal, with a judgment for the appellee in the amount of $583.62 plus costs.