18 S.W. 377 (Ark. 1892), Reynolds v. Reynolds

Citation:18 S.W. 377, 55 Ark. 369
Opinion Judge:HUGHES, J.
Party Name:REYNOLDS v. REYNOLDS
Attorney:J. C. Hawthorne for appellant. P. H. Crenshaw and S. A. D. Eaton for appellee.
Case Date:January 23, 1892
Court:Supreme Court of Arkansas
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 377

18 S.W. 377 (Ark. 1892)

55 Ark. 369

REYNOLDS

v.

REYNOLDS

Supreme Court of Arkansas

January 23, 1892

CROSS-APPEALS from Randolph Circuit Court, JAMES W. BUTLER, Judge.

Judgment reversed and cause remanded.

J. C. Hawthorne for appellant.

1. Appellee was entitled to the land as a homestead from the date of the marriage of her mother until she was 18 years of age, then the mother or her tenant was entitled to tents until dower was assigned. 34 Ark. 63; 40 id., 393. After dower assigned appellee was entitled to two-thirds of the rents, and the widow to one-third.

2. The agreement should have been admitted. It was a reasonable adjustment of their claims, and there is nothing to show undue influence, nor was there any trust relation between the parties. Mere inadequacy of consideration is not sufficient ground for cancelling a contract. 64 N.Y. 596; 42 id., 362. The real consideration may always be shown by either party. 95 N.Y. 575; 38 id., 263. Where there is any consideration for a contract, its adequacy cannot be questioned at law. 33 Ark. 97; 34 id., 663.

3. The agreement can be upheld on the ground that it was executed to prevent litigation. 1 Pars., Cont., 468: 2 Pa. 531; 43 id., 172. A compromise of a disputed claim will be sustained by the courts. 61 N.Y. 623; 100 N.Y. 226; 78 N.Y. 334.

4. Appellee accepted the $ 65 and cannot retain the consideration and disregard the contract. 86 N.Y. 75; 76 N.Y. 36; 99 N.Y. 611; 11 N.E. 764.

5. Three years rents are all appellee could recover. Mansf. Dig., sec. 2646. There is no exception in favor of infancy. 48 Ark. 184.

P. H. Crenshaw and S. A. D. Eaton for appellee.

1. On the widow's marriage her rights in the homestead ceased. Const. 1868, art. 12, secs. 4 and 5. Plaintiff was a minor until she reached the age of 21. Gould's Dig., ch. 81, sec. 1. The repeal by Mansf. Dig., sec. 3464, could not cut off her right.

2. A minor cannot waive or abandon her homestead rights. 29 Ark. 633; 47 Ark. 449, 456. Her right was superior to dower or quarantine. 54 Ark. 9; 51 id., 335.

3. The agreement was a mere nudum pactum and properly excluded as a flimsy attempt to defeat a minor's homestead right. 25 Ark. 107; 41 id., 309; 38 id., 428.

4. There is no showing that appellant believed himself, in good faith to be the owner, under color of title, and Mansf. Dig., secs. 2644-6 is not applicable. Nor is 48 Ark. 184.

5. Betterments are allowed against a minor's homestead only to the extent they have enhanced the rental value. 37 Ark. 316; 29 id., 633; 47 id., 445.

OPINION

[55 Ark. 371] HUGHES, J.

On the 16th day of May, 1890, the appellee brought this action to recover of appellant lands described in her complaint. The appellant...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP