Barkheimer v. Lockhart
| Decision Date | 16 June 1919 |
| Docket Number | 39 |
| Citation | 213 S.W. 381,139 Ark. 223 |
| Parties | BARKHEIMER v. LOCKHART |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Appeal from Ouachita Chancery Court; Thomas I. Thornton, Special Chancellor; reversed.
Decree reversed and cause remanded.
R. K Mason and Powell & Smead, for appellant.
The undisputed evidence shows that Lockhart was insane at the time of the execution of the deeds and they are void and the property subject to plaintiff's claim. 106 Ark. 230. Plaintiff was a creditor within the meaning of our statutes when the deeds were executed. It only remained for the jury to ascertain and find her damages. The deeds made Lockhart insolvent. The deeds were also void, being voluntary and in fraud of creditors. 56 Ark. 73; 50 Id. 46; 68 Id. 162; 86 Id. 225; 73 Id. 174; 91 Id. 399; 74 Id. 161; 105 Id 90; 106 Id. 230; 108 Id. 164. The alleged consideration was neither a good nor a valuable one. See case of 108 Ark. 164; 38 Ill.App. 180. The decree should be reversed with directions to grant the relief prayed, with costs and attorney' fees.
Gaughan & Sifford, for appellees.
1. Appellant must prove that the conveyances were fraudulent and voluntary, and the creditors were hindered and delayed. She has not done so. The undertaking by Mrs. Lockhart was a valuable consideration. 4 Words and Phrases, 1132; 101 Ark 28.
2. It was not proved that fraud was intended. 110 Ark. 335, 345; 99 Id. 45; 91 Id. 218; 39 Id. 571; 55 Id. 59. See also 22 Id. 184. Each case must rest upon its own circumstances and no general rule can be laid down.
Here the consideration was adequate, but mere inadequacy of price or consideration is not sufficient to show that a conveyance is fraudulent as to the grantee. 92 Ark. 248; 118 Id. 237.
3. As to defendant Meek, the lot was purchased long before the assault and was conveyed to Mrs. Lockhart with the view of completing the gift, as well as for other purposes, which made up the consideration for the conveyances. There is no proof of actual fraud and no attorneys' fees should be allowed. The decree should be affirmed, as there are no errors.
On the 2nd day of August, 1915, J. D. Lockhart, a druggist of Camden, Arkansas, committed rape upon the person of Vera Barkheimer, a white girl nine years of age. On the same day Lockhart was arrested upon a warrant charging him with the commission of the crime and placed in the jail, where he remained until taken to the State Hospital for Nervous Diseases several days later.
On August 4, 1915, two days after his arrest and while still in jail and after he had been adjudged insane, Lockhart executed three deeds to his wife, thereby conveying to her two lots in the business section of the city of Camden, and his homestead in that city, which was all the real estate owned by him. Each of these deeds recited a consideration of five dollars and love and affection. It was admitted that the five dollars was not paid, but Mrs. Lockhart testified that the real consideration for the deeds was the agreement by her to pay the expense of her husband's defense and to assume the support of their three minor children. These children were 19, 17 and 14 years of age, respectively. Mrs. Lockhart testified that she had discharged the obligations thus assumed by paying attorney's fees in both the criminal prosecution and in the suit for damages amounting to something over a thousand dollars, and that she had expended twelve hundred dollars a year for the support of the children, and that sum would be required for their continued support during their minority, and that the value of the property conveyed to her by her husband would be thus more than consumed, and that her husband owed no debts at the time of his arrest. The testimony is conflicting as to the value of these lots, it being placed as high as five thousand dollars by some of the witnesses and as low as three thousand by others at the time the deeds were made. In addition to this property Lockhart had two hundred dollars in money and a stock of drugs worth fifteen hundred dollars. This stock was disposed of by sale at retail and finally closed out before the recovery of the judgment for damages.
A suit for damages was begun on January 10, 1916 which resulted in a judgment on October 26, 1917, for $ 750. On November 8, 1917, Mrs. Lockhart conveyed one of the lots to an attorney representing her...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
National Life Ins. Co. v. Jayne
...1028; Fixico v. Fixico, 186 Okl. 656, 100 P.2d 260. 5 Eagle v. Peterson, 136 Ark. 72, 206 S.W. 55, 57, 7 A.L.R. 553; Barkheimer v. Lockhart, 139 Ark. 223, 213 S.W. 381, 382; In re Baker's Estate, 176 Cal. 430, 168 P. 881, 883; Avery v. Avery, 42 Cal. App. 100, 183 P. 453, 454; American Trus......
-
Schuman v. Westbrook
... ... prima facie evidence in a suit like the one here ... (Eagle v. Petterson, 136 Ark. 72, 206 S.W ... 55, 7 A. L. R. 553; Barkheimer v. Lockhart, ... 139 Ark. 223, 213 S.W. [207 Ark. 498] 381). The chancery ... court had authority to determine mental status in this case ... ...
-
Schuman v. Westbrook
...have been prima facie evidence in a suit like the one here. Eagle v. Peterson, 136 Ark. 72, 206 S.W. 55, 7 A.L.R. 553; Barkeheimer v. Lockhart, 139 Ark. 223, 213 S.W. 381. The Chancery Court had authority to determine mental status in this case irrespective of any previous adjudication by t......
-
Hall v. Aetna Life Ins. Co.
...et al., 169 Ark. 62, 272 S.W. 873, 875; Eagle v. Peterson et al., 136 Ark. 72, 206 S.W. 55, 57, 7 A.L.R. 553; Barkheimer v. Lockhart et al., 139 Ark. 223, 213 S.W. 381, 382; Feild et al. v. Koonce et al., 178 Ark. 862, 12 S.W.(2d) 772, 774, 68 A.L.R. 1303. It did nothing more than create a ......