Beauchamp v. Bertig

• Decision Date: 26 April 1909
• Citation: 119 S.W. 75,90 Ark. 351
• Parties: BEAUCHAMP v. BERTIG
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

119 S.W. 75

90 Ark. 351

BEAUCHAMP v. BERTIG

Supreme Court of Arkansas

April 26, 1909

[Copyrighted Material Omitted]

Appeal from Greene Chancery Court; Edward D. Robertson, Chancellor reversed.

STATEMENT BY THE COURT.

In 1885 H. H. Sitterding, Sr., died, owning and occupying a certain lot in the town of Paragould, Greene County, Arkansas. He left a widow and two minor sons, George and Herman. The widow intermarried with one Thomas, and soon afterwards moved to Oklahoma, taking her son George with her. Herman was sent to live with relatives in Indiana. On the 23d of January, 1892 the present guardian and curator of George and Herman, under orders of the probate court, leased the lot in controversy to appellees for a period of eleven years, for the sum of $ 300 per year. Under the terms of the lease, all the improvements made on the lot by appellees would remain personal property and when the lease expired appellees were given the privilege of removing same. The appellees took possession under the lease and erected on the leased lot, and on another lot adjoining which they owned, a two-story brick business house at an expense of between nine and ten thousand dollars.

On the 28th day of August, 1899, under the orders of the probate court, the guardian and curator executed another lease on the lot mentioned to appellees for a period of ten years, upon substantially the same terms as the former lease. Under the last lease, appellees were given six months from the expiration of the lease to sell or remove the improvements made thereon, and during such time they were to pay rent at the rate of $ 25 per month.

On the 3d day of May, 1904, the district court of the Territory of Oklahoma rendered a judgment removing the disabilities of nonage of George and Herman Sitterding, specifically authorizing them to sell the lot mentioned above, which is described in the judgment. On the 5th day of May, 1904, a deed was executed by Emma Thomas (formerly Sitterding), George Sitterding and Herman Sitterding in which, for the consideration of $ 3,000, they did "grant, bargain, sell and convey" unto Bertig Brothers (appellees) the lot, describing it, and covenanted with them to forever warrant and defend the title against all lawful claims. The deed was duly recorded in Greene County on June 6, 1904.

George Sitterding came of age July 30, 1905 Herman reached his majority March 15, 1907. On the 6th day of April, 1907, George and Herman Sitterding, for the consideration of $ 3,000, duly executed to appellant D. G. Beauchamp a deed in which they did "grant, bargain, sell and convey" unto Beauchamp, and unto his heirs and assigns forever, "all their right, title and interest in and to" the lot mentioned above. The deed contained no specific covenants to warrant and defend the title.

On the 8th of June, 1907, appellant brought suit in the circuit court of Greene County against appellees for the lot in controversy, claiming title and right to possession of same under his deed from George and Herman Sitterding, which he made an exhibit. The complaint, after describing the lot and deraigning the title thereto, alleged that the appellees were in possession of said property under and by virtue of the deed of conveyance executed by George Sitterding and H. H. Sitterding, Jr., on May 5, 1904, while the parties were minors, and it charged that they avoided and repudiated the same afterwards by executing a deed to appellant. It was alleged that appellant had tendered to appellees the sum of $ 1,720, the amount paid by them to the Sitterdings, which the appellees refused to accept; that appellees were liable to him for rentals on the lot in controversy for a period of three years and one month at the rate of $ 100 per month. Appellant prayed judgment for possession, and for damages in the sum of $ 2,500, and for all proper relief.

The answer and cross-complaint of appellees set up title to the lot sued for, under the deed from Emma Thomas and George and Herman Sitterding of May 5, 1904; denied that either of said heirs was under any disability when they executed the deed, and denied that appellees only paid $ 1,720 for the lot, but alleged that they paid $ 4,100--that is, $ 3,000 to the grantors themselves, and discharged their obligations for $ 1,100 more. The proceedings of the District Court of Oklahoma were set forth in extenso, and the duly authenticated copy of that judgment was properly pleaded; and it was alleged that under that judgment George and Herman Sitterding had the power to make the deed under which appellees claimed, the same as if they had been of full age, and that under the Constitution and the Revised Statutes of the United States full faith and credit must be given to that judgment here. The terms of the lease were set forth, and the possession of appellees thereunder and the improvements made by them, and it was alleged that the appellant had notice of appellees' rights under the lease. The lease was pleaded in bar of appellant's right to recover possession of the premises. The cross-complaint contained the further allegation "that on April 6, 1907, the plaintiff, well knowing the contract aforesaid and of the payment by defendants of the purchase money for said premises, for a consideration of two hundred and fifty dollars acquired from said George W. Sitterding and H. H. Sitterding a deed of conveyance to said premises, which has been recorded in the office of said recorder of Greene County;" and they charge that whatever title he may have so acquired he held in trust for the defendants.

It was further averred that no dower had ever been assigned to said widow, Emma Thomas, and that by said conveyance she had assigned to them all of her dower rights in the said premises, and that they were the owners thereof. And they further averred that the premises consisted of a lot 50x100 feet, entirely covered by the two-story brick business house erected by defendants under said lease, and that it was indivisible so as to carve out said dower interest without prejudice.

There was a further allegation that the plaintiff procured George W. Sitterding to join in the deed to plaintiff for the premises in controversy by representing to him that the plaintiff represented defendants and wanted said deed from him (the said Sitterding) in order to affirm and make valid the deed which he, Sitterding, had previously made to defendants, and that said Sitterding agreed, for the sum of $ 100 paid by plaintiff to him, to make a new deed affirming and ratifying his previous conveyance, and that he executed said deed to the plaintiff with the intention and for the purpose of thereby confirming and ratifying the title previously conveyed to defendants.

They prayed that the deed from George Sitterding to plaintiff be taken as a confirmation and ratification of the previous conveyance made to defendants; also, that whatever title was acquired by plaintiff be decreed to belong to them and be divested out of him and vested in them; or, failing in this, that the said dower interest be adjudged to them, and that a lien be imposed upon said premises for the value of such improvements, or that the right to remove the improvements be otherwise protected, and for other relief.

The answer of appellant to the cross-complaint of appellees contained allegations of fact to show that the district court of Oklahoma had no jurisdiction to render the judgment removing the disabilities of George and Herman Sitterding, and such jurisdiction was denied. Appellant denied that more than $ 1,720 was paid to the Sitterdings by appellees; denied that he held the title in trust for appellees; denied that the lease to appellees was of any value, or that appellees had the right to remove the building from the lot in controversy. He denied that appellant had procured the deed from George Sitterding by representing himself to be representing appellees for the purpose of procuring a deed affirming or making valid the deed previously made to appellees; denied that the deed was made by George Sitterding to appellant for the purpose of ratifying the deed made by George Sitterding to appellees; but alleged that George made the deed to appellant for the consideration of $ 125 paid him by appellant, and that he knew when he executed the deed that it was not to confirm any previous deed. The appellant further denied "that he procured an execution of said deed for a consideration of $ 250, but says that the actual consideration for said execution was the money that the said George W. Sitterding and Herman H. Sitterding had received from the defendants herein, together with the further sum of all the indebtedness that was probated against the estate of Herman H. Sitterding, Sr., and the further sum of $ 500.

The cause, on motion of appellees, was transferred to the chancery court and heard there upon the pleadings, exhibits and depositions. The court dismissed the appellant's complaint and quieted the title in appellees. Appellant prosecutes this appeal. Further facts will be stated in the opinion.

Decree reversed and cause remanded.

Hawthorne & Hawthorne, for appellants.

An order of a court removing the disabilities of a minor virtually fixes and establishes his majority at an earlier period of life than that fixed by the general law. 36 La.Ann 250. The legislature of one State does not possess the power to pass a law overriding and controlling the laws of another State; neither can it pass a law authorizing a court to do it. 65 Mo. 349; Wharton on Conflict of Laws, § 114; Minor on Conflict of Laws, § 4. The "full faith and credit" clause of the Federal Constitution means no more than to regulate the acknowledged jurisdiction of the States over persons and things within their...