Bland v. Talley

Decision Date17 December 1887
Citation6 S.W. 234
PartiesBLAND <I>et al.</I> <I>v.</I> TALLEY.
CourtArkansas Supreme Court

Appeal from circuit court, Howard county; H. B. STUART, Judge.

Smoote, McRae & Arnold, for appellants. I. D. Conway and R. B. Williams, for appellees.

SMITH, J.

The object of the bill was to establish a resulting trust in land. It alleged that the plaintiff, John L. Talley, and his two brothers, William H. and Frank, both since deceased, had, in the year 1872, purchased a tract of 200 acres of land for $1,200, the same to be held in common, and in equal shares; that, as the plaintiff and Frank were minors, it was on that account agreed that the purchase should be made in the name of William H.; that the purchase was entirely upon a credit, and the land was to be paid for entirely out of the crops produced by their joint labor; that the brothers took possession of and farmed the land together, under this agreement, until the death of Frank, which occurred in February, 1875; that about this date a payment of $500 was made on the land out of the proceeds of crops raised by the joint labor of all three; that, after the death of Frank, the residue of purchase money was in like manner paid from crops produced by the two surviving brothers, and the title deeds were made to William H., who frequently promised to convey to the plaintiff his share, but died without having done so. The answer specifically denied all the material averments of the bill. It denied that the purchase of the land was for the joint account of the brothers, and asserted that it was made by William H. with his own money, and for his individual benefit. The circuit court appointed a receiver, upon the coming in of the answer, to take charge of the place, and collect the rents and profits; and at the hearing it established the alleged trust, and decreed that the plaintiff was the equitable owner of one-third of the land, and the heirs at law of Frank were entitled to another third upon the payment of one-third of such part of the purchase money as was paid after his death.

The proofs showed the following state of facts: At the date of the purchase in 1872, William H. Talley had charge of John L. and Frank, lads aged, respectively, 14 and 16 years, and also of a sister. The family was poor. William H. had no cash capital, but was an enterprising farmer, and owned four horses and mules, a wagon, and the ordinary farm tools and implements. His brothers and sister had no property of any description, but for their support and education were dependent upon him and their own labor. He seems to have bought the land for the purpose of providing a home for himself and them, and with a view to keep the family together. His ability to pay for it depended on the result of his farming operations; and the factors which contributed to his success were his own energy and skill in farming, the labor of his brothers and sister, his team, and the credit he enjoyed as a managing farmer. The bond for title, and the deed of conveyance when, five or six years later, the payment was finally completed, were in the name of William H. In fact, the vendors had never heard of his brothers; so we may be sure the land was not sold on the credit of their labor. The family settled upon the land about January, 1873; the sister doing the household work, and the brothers laboring in the field. Frank died about two years afterwards. William H. married in 1876. The sister married in the following year, and withdrew to her husband's house. John L. remained, going to school a part of the time, and working on the farm the rest of the time. His board, clothes, and washing were furnished by his brother, who also paid his medical and school bills. When he grew to man's estate, he was furnished with as much land as he could use, free of rent, and with a horse to work it; and he made crops by himself, and appropriated the proceeds of them to his own use, living all the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • Acker v. Priest
    • United States
    • Iowa Supreme Court
    • December 14, 1894
    ...v. Lantry, 51 Ill. 458; McClain v. McClain, supra; Shafter v. Huntington (Mich.) 19 N. W. 11;Ratliff v. Ellis, 2 Iowa, 59;Bland v. Talley (Ark.) 6 S. W. 234. There was no trust in the Cass county land. We cannot do better, in closing this opinion, than to quote a paragraph from the case of ......
  • Cushing v. Heuston
    • United States
    • Washington Supreme Court
    • June 4, 1909
    ...added: 15 Am. & Eng. Enc. of Law (2d Ed.) 1187; Pinnock v. Clough, 16 Vt. 500, 42 Am. Dec. 521; Hunt v. Roberts, 40 Me. 187; Bland v. Talley, 50 Ark. 71, 6 S.W. 234; of McCall (Pa.) 11 A. 206; Kraft v. Smith, 117 Pa. 183, 11 A. 371; Morton v. Nelson (Ill.) 31 N.E. 168; Bailey v. Hemenway, 1......
  • George v. Donohue
    • United States
    • Arkansas Supreme Court
    • November 4, 1935
    ...not be established by parol testimony, but falls within the statute of frauds. We have had many decisions to that effect. In Bland v. Talley, 50 Ark. 71, 6 S.W. 234, it was held, to quote the headnotes: "A parol that another shall be interested in the purchase of lands, or a parol declarati......
  • Bland v. Talley
    • United States
    • Arkansas Supreme Court
    • December 17, 1887
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT