Bray v. Bray

Decision Date18 February 1918
Docket Number161
Citation201 S.W. 281,132 Ark. 438
PartiesBRAY v. BRAY
CourtArkansas Supreme Court

Appeal from Yell Chancery Court, Dardanelle District; Jordan Sellers, Chancellor; affirmed.

Decree affirmed.

John B Crownover, for appellant.

1. The evidence shows conclusively that the deed was delivered with intent to pass title. 98 Ark. 466; 15 Id. 538; 82 Id. 47; 97 Id. 104; 22 Id. 488; 7 Id. 505; 93 Id. 324; 23 Id. 746.

2. The findings of the chancellor are clearly erroneous, and the decree should be reversed. 31 Ark. 85; 77 Id. 216; 114 Id. 121. See also 75 Id. 72; 43 Id. 307; 42 Id. 522.

Davis & Bohlinger, for appellee.

1. There was no delivery of the deed with intent to pass title. 77 Ark. 89; 98 Id. 466; 2 Tiffany, Real Prop. 406; 124 S.W. 778; 13 Cyc. 569, 570; 90 S.W. 617; 24 Ark. 244.

2. The finding of the chancellor is supported by the evidence.

OPINION

MCCULLOCH, C. J.

The parties to this suit are related to each other as father and son. Appellant instituted the action against his father in the chancery court of Yell County to compel the restoration of a deed alleged to have been executed to him by his father conveying a tract of land in that county containing forty acres. He alleged in the complaint that his father came to live with him under a verbal agreement that he (appellant) should take care of his father and provide him a comfortable home and living the balance of his life, and that his father in consideration thereof, executed the deed in question conveying the land, subject to his father's use and enjoyment of rents during his life. He alleged that the deed was duly executed and delivered to him by his father but that after the delivery he left the deed with his father for safe keeping and that later his father became dissatisfied and left the premises and carried the deed off with him. He also alleged in the complaint that his father had $ 500 in cash and delivered it to him under an agreement that he should pay his father $ 50 a year during the latter's lifetime, and that the principal sum should be his upon the death of his father.

It is alleged in the complaint that a note evidencing the transaction with respect to the money was executed and that appellee had also taken that note away with him when he left the premises. In the answer appellee denied that he delivered the deed to appellant. The cause was heard by the chancellor upon that issue of fact.

It is undisputed that appellee, who had reached extreme old age went to live with his son, the appellant, and about that time executed a deed purporting to convey the land in question to his son, but there is sharp conflict in the testimony as to whether or not the deed was ever delivered with the intention of passing the title. The deed contained the reservation of the use and occupation of the premises during the life of the grantor. Appellee was living in the house with appellant at the time the deed was executed. Appellant testified that his father brought the deed home and delivered it to him, but the next day suggested that it be returned to him and for safekeeping locked up in a tin box in appellee's trunk; that they acted upon that suggestion and the deed was placed in appellee's trunk and kept there until the latter left the premises and took the deed with him. Several other witnesses were introduced by appellant, all of them members of his family, who testified that there was a delivery of the deed, but that it was returned to the old man the next day to be put away in the trunk for safekeeping. The witnesses testified that the agreement between appellant and appellee at the time the deed was returned was that when the old man died appellant was to break the trunk open and get the deed and have it recorded. The deed was never placed of record. It was kept in appellee's trunk. The tin box in which it was kept and the trunk itself were both kept locked and the deed remained there until the old man carried it away. Several of the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
16 cases
  • Bray v. Timms
    • United States
    • Arkansas Supreme Court
    • 28 de janeiro de 1924
    ...the Garrett Royalty. 14 Ark. 286; 24 Ark. 244; 74 Ark. 104; 77 Ark. 89; 80 Ark. 8; 97 Ark. 283; 98 Ark. 466; 100 Ark. 427; 123 Ark. 601; 132 Ark. 438; 140 Ark. 579; 142 Ark. 4. The appellant cannot, on appeal, raise issues or defenses or present theories of the case for which he did not con......
  • McCord v. Robinson, 5-693
    • United States
    • Arkansas Supreme Court
    • 13 de junho de 1955
    ...Feazel, 113 Ark. 289, 168 S.W. 568; Watson v. Hill, 123 Ark. 601, 186 S.W. 68; Fine v. Lasater, 110 Ark. 425, 161 S.W. 1147; Bray v. Bray, 132 Ark. 438, 201 S.W. 281; Davis v. Davis, 142 Ark. 311, 218 S.W. 827; Hardin v. Russell, 175 Ark. 30, 298 S.W. 'In the case of Battle v. Anders, supra......
  • Woodruff v. Miller
    • United States
    • Arkansas Supreme Court
    • 3 de novembro de 1947
    ... ... the title immediately, ... and that the grantor shall lose ... dominion over the deed". In Bray v ... Bray, 132 Ark. 438, 201 S.W. 281, there was ... testimony that the grantor gave the deed to the grantee, who ... later returned it. The ... ...
  • Smith v. Van Dusen, 5-2682
    • United States
    • Arkansas Supreme Court
    • 14 de maio de 1962
    ...circumstances adduced in the evidence. His acts and conduct are to be regarded in ascertaining his intent.' In the case of Bray v. Bray, 132 Ark. 438, 201 S.W. 281, Chief Justice McCulloch, speaking for the court, succinctly stated the law as follows: '* * * We have said that the question o......
  • 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