Bryan v. Craig
| Decision Date | 13 November 1897 |
| Parties | BRYAN v. CRAIG |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Appeal from Chicot Chancery Court, JAMES F. ROBINSON, Chancellor.
STATEMENT BY THE COURT.
Action of ejectment by Sarah E. Green and others to recover from Robert E. Craig the possession of a tract of land in Chicot county, known as "Pastoria Place."
The facts in the case, so far as it is necessary to state them are as follows: One L. C. Bryan, the former husband of Mrs Greene, one of the appellants, was in 1881 the owner of the land in controversy. He and his brother, J. E. Bryan, had for some years been engaged in mercantile and farming business in Chicot county under the firm name of L. C. Bryan & Co. In the course of this business the said firm had become indebted to J. L. Harris & Co., merchants of New Orleans, La. To secure this indebtedness, the firm of L. C. Bryan & Co., executed a trust deed to one Carleton, as trustee, conveying to said trustee, besides real and personal property of said firm of L. C. Bryan & Co., also the Pastoria place and other valuable property belonging to L. C. Bryan individually. L. C. Bryan died in January, 1882, and shortly afterwards the property conveyed by the trust deed was sold by the trustee under the power contained in said deed, and purchased by J. H. Harris & Co. in part satisfaction of their debt. Said Harris & Co. afterwards commenced an action of ejectment against the widow of L. C. Bryan to recover from her possession of the land in controversy purchased by them at the trustee sale. Mrs Bryan, now Mrs. Green, resisted said action of ejectment and, having been appointed administratrix of her husband's estate, she, as such administratrix, and in her own right as widow, also commenced an action in the federal court against said Harris & Co. She alleged in said action that said Harris & Co. had disposed of a large quantity of cotton belonging to the firm of L. C. Bryan & Co., that the property conveyed by the trust deed was sold without being properly appraised, that at the time of the appraisement the Pastoria place and other land were submerged by an overflow of the Mississippi river, and could not be properly appraised, and that the cotton and other personal property sold by Harris & Co. was more than sufficient to pay off the entire debt secured by the deed of trust, and that the sale of the Pastoria place and other land was unnecessary. Whereupon she prayed that the sale of the personal property be set aside, that Harris & Co. be charged with the full value thereof, and that the "sale of said Pastoria plantation and said Sanders place be set aside and held for naught, and the title acquired by said J. H. Harris & Co., the purchasers at said sale, be cancelled, and the cloud created by said sale removed." The defendant (Craig) and D. H. Reynolds were the attorneys for Mrs. Bryan in this litigation. Afterwards in April, 1886, both of the actions, the one in ejectment and the one to set aside the sale under the trust deed, were compromised. In the compromise, Harris & Co. agreed that if another action in reference to some of this same property, brought against them by third parties, should be decided in favor of said Harris & Co., they would convey to Mrs. Bryan the Pastoria and Sanders places in settlement of the two actions pending between them. This agreement to compromise was afterwards carried into effect, and the land in controversy was conveyed by quit-claim deed from Harris & Co. to Mrs. Bryan. This is the title upon which Mrs. Bryan (now Mrs. Green) based her action of ejectment against Craig in this ease. The defendant, Craig, for answer to the action of Mrs. Green, alleged that, after the execution of the deed from Harris & Co. to her, he purchased the land in controversy from her for the consideration of $ 2,000. He alleged that, at the beginning of the litigation between Mrs. Green and Harris & Co., she had no money, and did not wish to incur further expenses. It was therefore agreed between her and himself, as her attorney, that he and D. H. Reynolds would conduct the litigation upon a contingent fee. In the event they were successful, they were to receive one-half of the property or money covered by the law suit; but if they recovered nothing, they should charge nothing. He alleged that the property in controversy was the fruits of the law suit, and was valued at $ 2,000; that Mrs. Green did not want the property, so he agreed to take the property, and pay her one thousand dollars for her half interest, and to pay Reynolds a fee of $ 500, she agreeing to have the property conveyed to him. He further alleged that he took possession of the land under this contract, paid to Reynolds a fee of $ 500, and was ready and willing to perform his contract in all respects; but that she had repudiated the same, and refused to convey the land to him. He asked that the cause he transferred to the equity docket, and that she be compelled to perform said contract, etc.
The case was transferred to the equity docket, and Mrs. Green filed her reply, denying the allegations of the answer of Craig. She also demurred to the answer on the ground that it stated no defense to her action. Afterwards, Mrs. Green, pending the litigation, conveyed her interests in said land. to J. E. Bryan and other heirs of her deceased husband. She having married Green, her present husband, her letters of administration were revoked, and J. E. Bryan was appointed administrator de bonis non of said estate.
Afterwards said Bryan, as administrator de bonis non, and in his own right as heir, and the other heirs of L. C. Bryan, were made parties plaintiff with Mrs. Green. Upon the hearing, the chancellor found in favor of the defendant, Craig, and decreed that the lands in controversy were held by Mrs. Green under the conveyance from Harris & Co. to her in trust for Craig; that he should retain possession of said lands; and that his title thereto should be quieted. He further decreed that Craig should pay to the plaintiffs $ 1,000, with six per cent. interest from March 5, 1889, etc. From this decree plaintiffs appealed.
Decree reversed and cause remanded.
J. H. Connerly, for appellants.
The administratrix had no power to make the contract to give one-half of the amount or land recovered to her attorneys as their fee. 38 Ark. 147; 31 Ark. 334; 21 Ark. 62; 21 Ark. 347. Appellees had no lien on the property. 47 Ark. 86; 30 Ark. 44.
Robt. E. Craig, pro se, and D. H. Reynolds, for appellee.
The common-law right of the personal representative to employ attorneys, when such a course is necessary for the preservation of the estate, still exists in many cases, even though no order from the probate court was obtained authorizing such employment. 38 Ark. 146; 49 Ark. 235, and cases cited; 35 Ark. 267, 268; 30 Ark. 312; 35 Ark. 268; 38 Ark. 145. The fee was reasonable, and the executrix had power to make the contract.
OPINION
RIDDICK, J., (after stating the facts.)
This is a controversy concerning the title and right to the possession of a tract of land in Chicot county known as "Pastoria Place." The land at one time belonged to L. C. Bryan, now deceased, and the appellee, Craig, claims to have purchased it from appellant, Mrs. Green, who was the widow of said Bryan, and administratrix of his estate. Mrs. Green denied that she sold or agreed to sell the land to Craig, but, as the evidence on that point was conflicting, the finding of the chancellor may be taken as settling that point in favor of Craig.
But the heirs of L. C. Bryan and the administrator de bonis non of his estate are parties to this action with Mrs. Green, and if we assume that it is true, as alleged by Craig, that Mrs. Green agreed, to convey him this land, it becomes necessary to consider the extent, of her interest in said land, and whether the estate and heirs of L. C. Bryan are in anyway affected by her contract to convey.
As set out in the statement of facts, L. C. Bryan, the former owner of this land, executed a trust deed upon it to secure a debt he owed Harris & Co., merchants of New Orleans. Shortly afterwards he died, and the land was sold, under the power contained in the trust deed and purchased by Harris & Co. But the widow and administratrix of Bryan refused to give possession, and Harris & Co. instituted an action at law to recover possession of the land. She resisted this action, and also brought another action in the federal court to set aside the sale of the personal and real property made under the trust deed, to compel Harris & Co. to account for the proceeds of the personal property, and to remove the cloud upon the real estate caused by the sale thereof under the deed of trust. The result of this action to set aside the sale under the trust deed and to compel Harris & Co. to account for the proceeds of the personal property was that Harris & Co. compromised by reconveying the land to Mrs. Bryan. Now the conduct of Harris & Co. in reconveying the land to Mrs. Bryan was to that extent a recognition of the justness of the contention made by her and her counsel, of whom appellee, Craig, was one, that the sale of the land under the trust deed was unnecessary and invalid. They, in effect, conceded that her action to set aside the sale of the land under the trust deed was well founded, and executed a quit-claim deed conveying the land to her, in settlement of the controversy. Mrs. Bryan paid Harris & Co. nothing for the land conveyed to her by them. She was the administratrix of the estate of Bryan, and represented the estate in the litigation against Harris &...
To continue reading
Request your trial