Barnhart v. Gorman
| Decision Date | 19 November 1917 |
| Docket Number | 246 |
| Parties | BARNHART v. GORMAN |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Appeal from St. Francis Chancery Court; E. D. Robertson, Chancellor affirmed.
Decree affirmed.
Mann & Mann, for appellant.
1. The property was a homestead and exempt, and even if the husband paid for it and took the deed in the name of the wife creditors can not complain. 43 Ark. 429; 75 Id. 205; 54 Id. 9; Art. 9, § 3, Const.; etc.
2. There is no question of an express trust in this case. 107 Ark. 535; 103 Id. 145; 56 Id. 585.
3. As to the bank stock there is nothing in the record to reflect upon the good faith of appellant. It was purchased with her money.
S. S Hargraves and C. W. Norton, for appellee.
1. Appellant has received more than the $ 2,500 allowed by the Constitution, and has not shown that the area did not exceed one-quarter of an acre. 34 Ark. 61; 54 S.W. 213; 67 Ark. 232; Thompson on Homest. & Ex., §§ 701-2.
2. The proceeds of a voluntary sale of a homestead are not exempt. 13 R. C. L. 584; 21 Cyc. 497, and notes.
3. The bank stock belonged to the husband and he was insolvent. The chancellor so found.
OPINION
J. W Barnhart bought a certain parcel of land in the town of Forrest City on May 27, 1908, and took the title thereto in the name of his wife, who is the appellant here. He built a home on the property, which he and his wife occupied as such until the 15th day of March, 1915, at which time they sold the property for $ 7,500, one-half cash, and the balance evidenced by two notes, each for $ 1,875, due, respectively, in one and two years. Barnhart was adjudged a bankrupt by the Federal Court for the Eastern Division of the Eastern District of Arkansas on the day of , 1915, and appellee, H. P. Gorman, was made trustee of the estate. Claims approximating sixty thousand dollars were proved in the bankruptcy proceedings, most of which were for sums of money obtained by Barnhart through fraudulent means from his creditors. It is admitted that the finding of the court below that Barnhart furnished the money with which the homestead was purchased, and that he was insolvent when he did so, is not contrary to the preponderance of the evidence.
On March 3, 1911, Barnhart bought a thousand dollars worth of the stock of the Planters Bank, of Forrest City, and took a certificate therefor in the name of his wife. The stock was paid for by the note of Barnhart, and the note was paid by Barnhart by giving his check therefor on May 31, 1911. The court below so found the facts in regard to the purchase of the stock, and we approve that finding, although appellant says that the finding is against the preponderance of the evidence, her contention being that she furnished the money to her husband with which the stock was purchased. This certificate of stock had been attached to a promissory note of Mrs. Barnhart held by another bank in Forrest City. The court ordered this stock sold as the property of Barnhart, subject to the lien of the bank. The correctness of this finding is attacked as being contrary to the preponderance of the evidence. But, as we have stated, we think the finding of the court, that the stock belonged to Barnhart, and not to his wife, is not clearly contrary to the preponderance of the evidence.
The trustee in bankruptcy sued to impound both the bank stock, and the unpaid purchase money notes given in payment of the homestead, and obtained a decree to that effect. Mrs. Barnhart, by this appeal, questions the correctness of the finding of fact of the court below in regard to the purchase of the bank stock. But we dispose of that contention by saying that we do not think the chancellor's finding is clearly contrary to the preponderance of the evidence. The principal point in the case appears to grow out of the insistence of Mrs. Barnhart that she is entitled to claim the notes as the proceeds of the sale of her homestead.
Appellee takes issue with appellant on this position and denies its correctness for two reasons. First, because it is shown that appellant has already received more than is allowed to be exempted as a homestead; and, second, that this action does not involve the homestead itself, but involves the proceeds of a voluntary sale of the homestead, and that it is not the law that the proceeds of a voluntary sale retain the sacred characteristics of the property from which they are derived. We have concluded that appellee is correct in his first contention, and we have not, therefore, decided whether he is also correct in his second contention.
Appellant's claim is based upon Section 3900 of Kirby's Digest, which is also Section 5, of Article 9, of the Constitution. It reads: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wooten v. Farmers' & Merchants' Bank
...v. Lawson, 58 Ark. 117; Whipple v. Keith, 134 Ark. 202; Wolf v. Hawkins, 60 Ark. 262; Brown v. People's Bank, 150 Ark. 136; Bernhart v. Gorman, 131 Ark. 116. of estoppel applies. Green v. Coldwaver, 99 Ark. 260; Sumpter v. Ark. Nat'l. Bank, 69 Ark. 224; 21 C. J. 1202, sec. 205. Effect of de......
-
Smith v. Flash TV Sales and Service, Inc., CA
...Hayes, 276 Ark. 582, 637 S.W.2d 592 (1982); Automotive Supply, Inc. v. Powell, 269 Ark. 255, 599 S.W.2d 735 (1980); Barnhart v. Gorman, 131 Ark. 116, 198 S.W. 880 (1917); Gibbs v. Adams, 76 Ark. 575, 89 S.W. 1008 (1906). "[I]ntention to abandon [a homestead] is an issue of fact, and in such......
-
Parker v. Johnson
...v. Hayes, 276 Ark. 582, 637 S.W.2d 592 (1982); Automotive Supply Inc. v. Powell, 269 Ark. 255, 599 S.W.2d 735 (1980); Barnhart v. Gorman, 131 Ark. 116, 198 S.W. 880 (1917); Gibbs v. Adams, 76 Ark. 575, 89 S.W. 1008 "[I]ntention to abandon [a homestead] is an issue of fact, and in such a sit......
-
In re Bradley
...in value, the debtors may claim it as a homestead only by showing that its area does not exceed one quarter acre. Barnhart v. Gorman, 131 Ark. 116, 198 S.W. 880, 881 (1917). In this case, Debtors have carved out one quarter acre of the 1.98 acre tract and claimed that one quarter acre as ex......