Caldcleugh v. Caldcleugh
| Decision Date | 09 April 1923 |
| Docket Number | (No. 292.) |
| Citation | 250 S.W. 324 |
| Parties | CALDCLEUGH v. CALDCLEUGH et al. |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Appeal from Ashley Chancery Court; E. G. Hammock, Chancellor.
Action by Carrie Caldcleugh against H. L. Caldcleugh, and others. Decree for plaintiff, and defendants appeal, and plaintiff cross-appeals. Affirmed in part, and in part reversed and remanded, with directions.
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 33 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 80 acres. Her husband had a homestead in 80 acres of the land, but was not living on it when he died. Her husband died on March 5, 1920, 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 80 acres. The heirs at law of her deceased husband on the next day executed to her a deed conveying their interest in the 80 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 80 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 his 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:
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, a 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.
Geo. Norman, of Hamburg, and U. J. Cone, of Pine Bluff, for appellants.
R. W. Wilson, of Pine Bluff, and Compere & Compere, of Hamburg, for appellee.
HART, J. (after stating the facts as above).
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...
To continue reading
Request your trial