Caldcleugh v. Caldcleugh

Decision Date09 April 1923
Docket Number292
PartiesCALDCLEUGH v. CALDCLEUGH
CourtArkansas Supreme Court

Appeal from Ashley Chancery Court; E. G. Hammock, Chancellor reversed in part.

STATEMENT OF FACTS.

On April 26, 1920, Carrie Caldcleugh brought suit in equity against A. C. Caldcleugh, H. L. Caldcleugh, Albertine Price and Nancy Ward to cancel a deed which she had executed in favor of all the defendants except Nancy Ward, on the ground that it had been obtained by undue influence, and also to set aside a settlement of her rights in the personal property of her deceased husband.

Hogan Caldcleugh died intestate and without children. He left surviving him his widow, Carrie Caldcleugh, and his mother Nancy Ward, his brothers, A. C. Caldcleugh and H. L Caldcleugh, and Albertine Price, as his sole heirs at law. His heirs at law defended the action of the widow on the ground that they had entered into a fair settlement of their rights in his property, and that this had been consummated by the execution of proper deeds to the realty and a bill of sale of the personalty.

Carrie Caldcleugh was a witness for herself. According to her testimony, she was thirty-three years of age, and married Hogan Caldcleugh on March 17, 1913. Her husband died March 5 1920, intestate and without issue, owning the real and personal property involved in this lawsuit. At the time of his death he owned 406 acres of land and a lot of personal property, consisting of cotton, mules, cows, hogs, farming utensils, and money. She helped him to accumulate all the land, except eighty acres. Her husband had a homestead in eighty acres of the land, but was not living on it when he died. Her husband died on March 5, 1920, and on the 8th of March, 1920, she executed to Harper L. Caldcleugh and his brother and sister a deed to all of her interest in her husband's land except eighty acres. The heirs at law of her deceased husband on the next day executed to her a deed conveying their interest in the eighty acres which had been reserved from her deed to them. Harper Caldcleugh was a man of experience, and she stayed at his house after the death of her husband. In a short time she found out that the mother of her deceased husband had a life interest in half of the eighty acres which had been conveyed to her by the other heirs of her deceased husband, and that the settlement which had been made with her was improvident. She was staying at the home of Harper Caldcleugh at the time of her husband's death, and, being overcome with grief at the death of her husband, relied upon him to make a fair settlement with her.

According to the testimony of Harper Caldcleugh, his brother Hogan owed $ 5,500 at the time of his death, and he assumed and paid all the debts of deceased brother. He fully explained to his brother's widow her rights in his property, and she accepted the settlement in question in this case, because it was the division of the property suggested by her husband in his lifetime.

Other witnesses testified that the plaintiff told them that she had received a division of the land which had been suggested by her husband in his lifetime.

Dr. G. W. Fletcher, a merchant and practicing physician, was present at the settlement and assisted in making it. According to his testimony, he told the widow that she was deeding away all of her interest in the 320 acres of land to the heirs-at-law of her deceased husband, and that they were deeding 80 acres to her. He told her that she could get more if she went to law. She then executed the deed to the heirs-at-law, and on the next day they executed a deed to their interest in the 80 acres to her. No coercion, inducement, or undue influence was used by any person to get the widow to sign the deed. In a few days thereafter they also reached an agreement about the personal property, and she agreed to take certain personal property if Harper Caldcleugh would pay all the debts of the decedent. She then executed a bill of sale as follows:

"Montrose, Ark., March 16, 1920.

"For and in consideration of H. L. Caldcleugh's paying all H. C. Caldcleugh's debts, and giving me the property listed on this, mules, Sam and Maggie, and paying me in cash $ 300, I deed away all my interest in all other personal property to said H. L. Caldeleugh of whatever nature.

"CARRIE CALDCLEUGH."

It was shown that the debts of the decedent amounted to $ 5,500, and that his personal property aggregated something over $ 9,000. The personal property received by the widow consisted of two mules, one horse, two wagons, a buggy, saddle, four cows and calves, a few plows, and $ 300 in money. She did not get any of the cotton on hand at all.

Other evidence will be stated or referred to in the opinion.

The chancellor set aside the deed executed by the widow on the ground that it was executed through mistake and undue influence. He held that she was not entitled to have the settlement of the personalty set aside. He also held that she was not entitled to a homestead in any of his land, but was entitled to an undivided one-half interest in fee in all his land as her dower.

A decree was entered in accordance with the findings of the chancellor, and to reverse that decree the defendants have duly prosecuted an appeal to this court.

The plaintiff has taken a cross-appeal.

Decree reversed. Motion for rehearing denied.

Geo. Norman, and U. J. Cone, for appellants.

Actionable fraud was neither sufficiently pleaded or proved to warrant the setting aside of the settlement made and cancellation of the deeds dividing the lands of the estate. 20 Cyc. 13, 35, 56, 86; 13 C. J. 382, note 279-D; 71 Ark. 305; 38 Ark. 334; 74 Ark. 46; 73 Ark. 547; 11 Ark. 58; 60 Ark. 387; 108 Ark. 343; 45 Ark. 284; 46 Ark. 245; 60 Ark. 281; 101 Ark. 95; 99 Ark. 438; 97 Ark. 15. The facts must be pleaded and proved to a reasonable degree of certainty. 10 Stand. Enc. Proc. 53. 20 Cyc. 13; 10 Stand. Enc. Proc. 57; 26 C. J. 1207, note 88; 95 Ark. 523; 95 Ark. 375. The contract of settlement was not induced by such misrepresentations that equity will refuse to enforce or cancel it. 95 Ark. 523; 11 Ark. 58; 31 Ark. 170; 47 Ark. 148; 83 Ark. 403; 95 Ark. 131; 74 Ark. 231; 22 Ark. 184; 77 Ark. 335. It was a family settlement, and should be adhered to. 15 Ark. 51; 15 Ark. 275; 102 Ark. 232; 74 Ark. 231; 18 C. J. 887, sec. 157, note 84; 107 Ark. 614; 48 Ark. 93. They are looked upon with peculiar favor and given liberal construction. 18 C. J. 888, sec. 158, note 92; 41 Ark. 270; 64 Ark. 19; 84 Ark. 610; 102 Ark. 659. Proof insufficient to warrant setting aside settlement on ground of mistake. Clark's El. Law, 170, sec. 132; 15 Ark. 275; 101 Ark. 461; 108 Ark. 503; 132 Ark. 227; 14 Ark. 482. Court erred in refusing to admit evidence offered. 55 Ark. 163; 37 Ark. 398; 37 Ark. 571; 30 Ark. 313; 32 Ark. 585; Winn v. State, 43 Ark. 151. Discretion abused. 38 Cyc. 1363 N. 84, 1365 N. 97, 1352-3. Proper rule. 1 Thompson Trials, sec. 346, 348; 38 Cyc. 1357-8-9, 1361, 1365-6, 1450, 1454, 21 C. J. 23, N. 1, N. 8; 229 U.S. 530. Duty of court as to amendments. 21 C. J. 580, N. 712; 69 N.E. 696, 32 Ind.App. 281; 16 Am. Dig. Dec. Ed. 546; § 4206, Crawford & Moses' Digest; 31 Cyc. 360-1, 367, 370, 372, 373, 426; 8 Stand. Proc. 488. Must be heard on merits. 38 Cyc. 1296 N. 79, 1361-2 N. 64. Court erred in refusing to allow withdrawal of submission and taking of further testimony.

R. W. Wilson and Compere & Compere, for appellee.

The chancellor's finding that the settlement was procured through undue influence should be upheld. 237 S.W. 703. The widow was overreached and imposed upon, and there was no such family settlement as the law favors. 107 Ark. 615; 85 Ark. 363, 2 Pom. Eq. § 956; 13 C. J. 366, sec. 239; Pom. Eq. 1748-9-50, § 956; 75 Ark. 240; 2 Pom. Eq. 849, 948, 951; Parker v. Hill, 85 Ark. 363; 10 R. C. L. 310, sec. 52, 312, sec. 55. Mistake relieved against. 75 Ark. 240; 69 Ar. 406; 13 C. J. 366-B; 39 Cyc. 1211-4, 1212-5; 86 Ark. 460. Appellee was the widow of Hogan Caldcleugh, and filed suit after she had been fraudulently stripped of all property belonging to her as such, and within less than two months after death of her husband, March 4, 1920, and ample time was given for the taking of all testimony. Taking of testimony was ordered finished within 30 days after May, 1921, and defendant had taken no testimony after December, 1920. 241 S.W. 21; 21 C. J. 582, sec. 717. Burden on appellants to show appellee's marriage illegal. 131 Ark. 225, 18 R. C. L. 417. On cross-appeal, widow was entitled to homestead. 134 Ark. 291; 134 Ark. 519; 130 Ark. 481. Burden on appellants is to show homestead abandoned. 100 Ark. 399.

HART, J. HART, J., on rehearing.

OPINION

HART, J., (after stating the facts).

We do not think that the chancellor erred in holding that the deed of the widow to the heirs at law of her deceased husband was procured by undue influence on their part. Undue influence has a broad field to work upon in the condition of the person influenced. All the surrounding circumstances which might make him susceptible and yielding are to be considered. The doctrine of equity concerning undue influence reaches every case "where influence is acquired and abused or where confidence is reposed and betrayed."

In the instant case the undisputed evidence shows that Hogan Caldcleugh died without issue, owning 406 acres of land. His personal property was sufficient to pay his debts. Having died without children, his widow was entitled to one-half of his real estate. Crawford & Moses' Digest, § 3536.

It is true that Harper Caldcleugh and Dr. Fletcher testified that no coercion or undue influence was exercised to cause her to execute the deed, but, when the surrounding circumstances are considered, we are...

To continue reading

Request your trial
15 cases
  • Pfaff v. Clements
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Arkansas
    • 5 Julio 1948
    ...107 Ark. 614, 156 S.W. 417; Dudgeon v. Dudgeon, 119 Ark. 128, 177 S.W. 402; Sursa v. Wynn, 137 Ark. 117, 207 S.W. 209; Caldcleugh v. Caldcleugh, 158 Ark. 224, 250 S.W. 324; Davis v. Davis, 171 Ark. 168, 283 S.W. 360; Tandy v. Smith, 173 Ark. 828, 293 S.W. 735; Hollowoa v. Buck, 174 Ark. 497......
  • Pfaff v. Clements
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Arkansas
    • 5 Julio 1948
    ......Smith, 107 Ark. 614,. 156 S.W. 417; Dudgeon v. Dudgeon, 119 Ark. 128, 177 S.W. 402; Sursa v. Wynn, 137 Ark. 117, 207 S.W. 209; Caldcleugh v. Caldcleugh, 158 Ark. 224, 250 S.W. 324;. Davis v. Davis, 171 Ark. 168, 283 S.W. 360;. Tandy v. Smith, 173 Ark. 828, 293 S.W. 735;. Hollowoa v. ......
  • Smith v. Flash TV Sales and Service, Inc., CA
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Arkansas
    • 26 Marzo 1986
    ...disturbed unless it appears to be against the preponderance of the evidence. 192 Ark. at 949, 96 S.W.2d at 484. In Caldcleugh v. Caldcleugh, 158 Ark. 224, 250 S.W. 324 (1923), the court dealt with the issue of intent in the context of abandonment of the It is well settled that a removal fro......
  • Parker v. Johnson
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Arkansas
    • 17 Mayo 2006
    ...disturbed unless it appears to be against the preponderance of the evidence. 192 Ark. at 949, 96 S.W.2d at 484. In Caldcleugh v. Caldcleugh, 158 Ark. 224, 250 S.W. 324 (1923), the court dealt with the issue of intent in the context of abandonment of the It is well settled that a removal fro......
  • 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