West v. Williams, 15 Ark. 682.... 22 Wimbish . Hamilton, 47 La. Ann. Wetzel v. Minn. Ry. Transfer Co., 169 U. S. 237.. Wheat v. Smith, 50 Ark. 266.. 443, White Sew. Machine Co. v. Worster, 66 Ark. 382.... 183 319 Womack v. Womack, 73 Ark. 281.. 425 444 Wood v. Wood, 54 Ark. 172... 23 Woods v. Carl, 75 Ark. 328... 545 592 Woollen v. Banker, 2 Flip. 33...... 334 227 Worthen v. Badgett, 32 Ark. 496.. 124 458 Wyatt v. Wallace, 67 Ark. 575.. Whiting v. Barney, 30 N. Y. 330.. 278 X 333, 335 554 Young v. Stevenson, 73 Ark. 480.. 182 7. Citizens, 40 Ark. 290.... Yowell v. State, 41 Ark. 355.. Wilmans v. Robinson, 67 Ark. 517.. 21 Zacher v. Fidelity Trust & S. V. Wilson v. State, 47 Ark. 199...... 308 Co., 106 Fed. 593. 523 369 CASES DETERMINED IN THE SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS ERRATA. On p. 58, On p. 139, On p. 159, On p. 159, On p. 195, said. On 17th line from bottom, for "are" read is. 7th line from bottom, for "as forfeited" substitute as afore p. 222, 5th line from bottom, for semicolon after "houses" substitute comma. On p. 321, On comma. P. 325, On p. 404, On p. 415, 10th line from bottom, for semicolon after “Emily" substitute Ist headnote, fourth line, for "admit" read submit. 2d headnote, 9th line, before "verbal" insert the. On P. 552, Miller, the tenant, who was in possession of the land. Miller made no defense, and a judgment by default was taken against CASES DETERMINED IN THE SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS ELDRED V. JOHNSON. Opinion delivered April 1, 1905. I. JUDGMENT CONCLUSIVENESS.-Dismissal of a bill in equity brought by a landlord asking that a default judgment obtained by defendant against the plaintiff's tenant be set aside on account of fraud in its procurement, and that plaintiff be permitted to make defense thereto, but without asking the court to pass on plaintiff's title, was not a decision that plaintiff had no title or right to possession, and will not estop plaintiff or those holding under him from litigating that question. (Page 3.) 2. SAME WHEN BINDING ON THIRD PERSON.-Where one person, responsible over to another, is notified by that other of the pendency of an action against him touching the subject-matter for which he is responsible, then the judgment will bind him, whether he appears or not, in any future action between him and the party to whom he is responsible. (Page 4.) 3. SAME-UPON WHOM BINDING.-The general rule is that judgments bind only parties to actions and persons in privity with them. (Page 5.) 4. EJECTMENT-RECOVERY AGAINST TENANT NOT BINDING ON LANDLORD.— A judgment in an ejectment suit against a tenant is not binding on the landlord as to the title if he was not made a party to the action, and did not appear therein. (Page 5.) Appeal from Prairie Circuit Court. GEORGE M. CHAPLINE, Judge. Affirmed. STATEMENT BY THE COURT. In 1893 A. H. Johnson was the owner of a tract of land in Prairie County containing about ninety-one acres. Johnson was a nonresident of the State, and the land was in the possession of his tenant, G. W. Miller. E. B. Eldred also claimed title to this land, and in April, 1893, he brought an action of ejectment against Miller, the tenant, who was in possession of the land. Miller made no defense, and a judgment by default was taken against |