Adkins v. Hoskins

• Decision Date: 05 March 1928
• Docket Number: 260
• Citation: 3 S.W.2d 322,176 Ark. 565
• Parties: ADKINS v. HOSKINS
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

3 S.W.2d 322

176 Ark. 565

ADKINS v. HOSKINS

No. 260

Supreme Court of Arkansas

March 5, 1928

Appeal from Johnson Chancery Court; W. E. Atkinson, Chancellor affirmed.

Decree affirmed.

Jesse Reynolds, for appellant.

Patterson & Patterson, for appellee.

OPINION

MEHAFFY, J.

The appellants brought suit in the Johnson Chancery Court to cancel and set aside deeds to certain property in Johnson County, Arkansas, which deeds were executed by appellant to appellee, George O. Patterson, Jr., at the instance of appellee, J. D. Hoskins.

The plaintiff alleged that he was a citizen and resident of Johnson County, and that defendant George O. Patterson, Jr. is a resident of Johnson County; that the defendant J. D Hoskins is a resident of Greene County, and the defendant Gladys H. Adkins is a resident of Hot Springs, Arkansas.

The appellant alleged in his complaint that, prior to the second day of July, 1926, he was the owner of the land described in his complaint; that he and Gladys H. Adkins were married in Texas, and lived together as husband and wife until recently; that they got along together as husband and wife, and never had any trouble of any kind. Gladys H. Adkins was a teacher in the city schools of Hot Springs, Arkansas, but returned home on the 21st day of April, 1926, and remained at home until the 20th day of May, when she received a telegram from her mother at Floydada, Texas, telling her to come to Texas at once; that she left on the train that afternoon, stating that she would return as soon as conditions would permit; that, when she arrived at her mother's home, she wrote plaintiff a letter that she would return as soon as her mother's condition permitted; that, during the month of June, while she was with her mother, she wrote appellant several letters, all of which were very affectionate, and appellant was expecting her to return home very soon; that, on the second day of July, 1926, she returned to Clarksville with John D. Hoskins, an attorney residing at Paragould, Arkansas; that, while appellant was busy at work, the said J. D. Hoskins came to his home, telling him that his wife had decided that she was not going to live with him any longer, and wanted a divorce and a division of the property, and he, Hoskins, had gone into the matter thoroughly, and that she had contributed certain funds from her own property in the amount of $ 1,400, which she was entitled to recover from him; that she had taught school at certain times, and did other work, from which she had earned $ 2,366, that she was entitled to recover from him this amount, with interest at 6 per cent., making a total of $ 3,766; that, in addition thereto, she was entitled to recover one-half of all his property, both real and personal; that Hoskins had looked up the value of their property, and that Mrs. Adkins was entitled to $ 7,500 or $ 8,000.

Plaintiff advised Hoskins that he was alarmed at the situation, did not understand this turn of affairs; that he wanted to see his wife, and wanted to talk with her, and inquired where she was, at which the defendant Hoskins told him that she was at the hotel, and that he would bring her up at one o'clock, and that at one o'clock the defendant Hoskins returned, and told him that his wife said she would not talk to him, and restated the matter with reference to his property rights and the division of his property, and stated that she would recover this amount in any event, and, unless he settled it without going into court, that, in addition thereto, there would be between $ 700 and $ 800 court costs, which would be taxed to this plaintiff. Hoskins assured appellant that he, Hoskins, was an attorney, learned in the law, and that matters he had represented to him were true, and that the affairs would result as he outlined to him; that it would be a great saving to plaintiff to make this character of settlement.

The appellant states that he had no knowledge of the law, and never had a lawsuit before, and was totally ignorant of the law; that he did not know his rights in the matter except as outlined by defendant Hoskins, and that, believing Hoskins' statements and relying solely upon them, he had finally consented to a division of the property. He alleged that he has learned, or is advised and believes, and, so believing, alleges, that the statements of Hoskins as to the matters of fact therein contained are true and the matters of law as represented by the defendant Hoskins were false and fraudulent, and made for the purpose of deceiving and misleading this plaintiff, knowing that he was ignorant of the law and his rights in this particular case, and knowing that he was relying upon his statements.

The appellant stated that the defendant Gladys H. Adkins was not entitled to recover $ 1,400; that she is not entitled to recover $ 2,366; and that she is not entitled to recover one-half of his property, real and personal, and that the court cost in all probability never would exceed $ 150. Appellant alleged that all of said statements were false and fraudulent, and made for the purpose of deceiving and misleading this plaintiff into a division of his property. Hoskins told him that, in order to divide his property, they must deed it to some third person, and it was customary to use some single person, and for that person to deed back to them severally their portions, and that this would clear the title to the property that they held, and that they could sell and dispose of the property as they saw fit. The appellant alleged that these representations were false and fraudulent, and that the statements were made for the purpose of deceiving, and did deceive, this plaintiff, and that he did execute deeds to all of the property to the defendant G. O. Patterson, Jr., and that said G. O. Patterson, Jr., then deeded back to this plaintiff a forty-acre tract of land, and deeded to defendant Gladys H. Adkins the balance of the property, including their home. Appellant alleged that on the same date Gladys H. Adkins made and executed to the said J. D. Hoskins a mortgage on the property deeded to her in the sum of $ 2,019.25, and that said mortgage was recorded in Johnson County, Arkansas.

Appellant stated that Gladys H. Adkins was not entitled to recover the amount of her earnings since their marriage; that she is not entitled to recover the $ 1,400; that no separate accounts have ever been kept between them; that their affairs have all been as one up to the time of the separation; and that she is not entitled to recover from this plaintiff any portion of his property, for the reason that she is not entitled to a divorce.

Appellant stated that the statements of Hoskins were false and fraudulently made to deceive him, and did deceive him, and that the deed to Patterson was executed without consideration; that he would not have consented to a division of his property but for the fraudulent statements of the defendant J. D. Hoskins.

Gladys H. Adkins filed answer, admitting that she and appellant were lawfully married; denied all of the other material allegations in the complaint. She alleged that, during their married life, she delivered and supplied to the plaintiff the sum of $ 3,800, which was used by the plaintiff in the acquisition of the property involved in this suit; said money was advanced by her with the understanding that she was to have an interest therein equal to the amount furnished by her. She alleged that Hoskins did not deceive or attempt to deceive with reference to the legal rights of the defendant and his property and affairs.

J. D. Hoskins filed separate answer, denying all the material allegations of the complaint.

George O. Patterson filed answer denying all knowledge of transactions, and alleging that said deeds were executed to him as a matter of transferring the property, as he thought, at the request of both of them.

Defendant filed a demurrer, but it was never passed on.

Gladys H. Adkins filed a suit for divorce. Adkins filed answer, and then an amendment, in which he asked for a divorce on his cross-complaint.

The two suits were consolidated and tried together in the chancery court. The court granted a decree for divorce to D. L. Adkins, dismissed the complaint of Gladys H. Adkins for divorce, and dismissed the complaint of D. L. Adkins against Gladys H. Adkins and others for cancellation of deeds for want of equity, and D. L. Adkins has appealed to this court.

Appellant's contention is that he was induced to make the settlement with his wife and convey his property on false and fraudulent representations as to the law. He does not claim there was any false representations as to any fact.

Attention is called by appellant to the statement in R. C. L. where it stated, in substance, that if a party, acting in ignorance of a plain and settled principle of law, is induced to give up property, a court of equity will relieve him, especially if he had been led into his mistake of the law by the other party. The section referred to by appellant in R. C. L. contains the following statement:

"It has already been pointed out that, in general, where the parties understand the facts, an erroneous deduction of law is not cause for annulling a compromise, but, while relief will rarely if ever be granted merely on account of mistake of law, there are cases where there are other...