Bouldin v. Jennings
Decision Date | 01 November 1909 |
Citation | 122 S.W. 639 |
Parties | BOULDIN et al. v. JENNINGS. |
Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Lawrence County; Frederick D. Fulkerson, Judge.
Action by Annie Bouldin and others against W. S. Jennings. A verdict was directed for defendant, and plaintiffs appeal. Reversed and remanded.
Beloate & Lomax, for appellants. W. A. Cunningham and J. M. Beakley, for appellee.
On the 5th of October, 1906, Annie Bouldin and others brought an action against W. S. Jennings to recover the possession of "all that part of the N. W. ¼ of the N. E. ¼ of section 34 in township 17 north, and in range 1 E., lying east of Village creek, the bed or channel of which being the west boundary line." They state in their complaint substantially as follows: James Tillman died on the 26th day of May, 1895, leaving Annie Bouldin his widow, and Dolly Bagley, then of the age of 17, Oscar Tillman, then of the age of 15, and Effie Tillman, then of the age of 3, his only heirs; they being his children. He died seised and possessed of the land described, occupying the same as his homestead. B. A. Morris was appointed administrator of his estate, and prior to the 18th day of July, 1899, paid all the probated claims against the same, and thereafter presented a petition to the Lawrence probate court for the sale of certain lands, describing them as follows: "Part of the southwest fourth of the northeast fourth sec. 34, Tp. 17 N., R. 1 E.," — alleging that debts probated against the estate remained unpaid. On the 18th day of July, 1899, the probate court made the order of sale, describing the lands as described in the petition. A copy of the order is made an exhibit to the complaint. The land as described was sold by the administrator, and he made report of the sale to the probate court, which was approved. The order approving is made an exhibit to the complaint. Plaintiffs further stated "that said defendant, realizing that his said deed was void for uncertainty in the description, and that same created no color of title, attempted to get the Lawrence probate court for the Eastern district to grant him an order nunc pro tunc correcting the description in said order of sale in his deed, and obtained another order." A copy of the order is filed as exhibit to the complaint.
They asked for "judgment against the defendant for the possession of the land, for cost, and all other relief."
The first exhibit shows that the court ordered "part of N. W. ¼ of the N. E. ¼ of Sec. 34, township 17, R. 1 E.," to be sold.
The second exhibit shows that the administrator reported to the court that he had sold "part of N. W. ¼ of the N. E. ¼ of Sec. 34, township 17 North, Range 1 East."
The third exhibit is as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Douglass
... ... 128; In re Tolman, 101 Me ... 559, 64 A. 952; Walch v. Colby, 153 Mich. 602, 126 ... Am. St. 546, 117 N.W. 207; Bolden v. Jennings, 92 ... Ark. 299, 122 S.W. 639; Clark v. Bank of Hennesy, 14 ... Okla. 572, 2 Ann. Cas. 219, 79 P. 217; 7 R. C. L. 1020; 15 C ... J. 975; Karrick ... lapse of time. (Coop v. Northcutt, 54 Mo. 128; ... In re Tolman, 101 Me. 559, 64 A. 952; Bouldin v ... Jennings, 92 Ark. 299, 122 S.W. 639.) This power extends ... to criminal as well as civil cases. (State v. Winter, ... supra; People v ... ...
- Bouldin v. Jennings
-
United Drug Co. v. Bedell, (No. 19.)
...cause them to speak the truth. Bobo, Adm'r, v. State, 40 Ark. 224, Schofield v. Rankin, 86 Ark. 86, 109 S. W. 1161, and Bouldin v. Jennings, 92 Ark. 299, 122 S. W. 639. The appeal was not taken within six months from the date of the rendition of the decree appealed from, and it follows that......