Carpenter v. Gibson

• Decision Date: 20 May 1912
• Citation: 148 S.W. 508
• Parties: CARPENTER v. GIBSON.
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

148 S.W. 508

CARPENTER v. GIBSON.

Supreme Court of Arkansas.

May 20, 1912.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Arkansas County; Eugene Lankford, Judge.

Ejectment by Valena Maxwell Gibson against W. N. Carpenter. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Appellee brought an action in ejectment against appellant for certain lots in the town of De Witt, claiming title thereto under a deed from Hattie Carpenter, wife of appellant. Appellant claimed that he purchased the property as a homestead, paid his own money therefor, and took the deed thereto in the name of his wife, who was to hold same in trust for his benefit; alleged that he was in possession of it at the time of appellee's purchase and the conveyance to her, and that she was not an innocent purchaser thereof, and moved a transfer of the cause to equity. A reply was filed, denying all the allegations of the answer.

The testimony is voluminous, and tends substantially to show: That appellant purchased a home first in Stuttgart, the title to which was placed in his wife's name. That thereafter it was sold, and that with a part of the proceeds the property in controversy at De Witt was purchased; the title thereto being taken in Hattie Carpenter's (the wife's) name. That she was not pleased with the locality and desired to move away. She mortgaged the property in March, 1906; her husband joining in the execution of the mortgage to appellee to secure a loan of $400. The money thus secured was deposited in the bank in her name, and she drew a check for a certain amount against it to pay off another incumbrance, and the account was continued in her name, and the money all drawn out by her checks, and it was not the custom of appellant to keep his bank account in his wife's name. She later left home, taking the five children of the marriage with her, and resided for a time in Iowa. In September, 1906, she sold the property and conveyed it by ordinary warranty deed to appellee for the consideration of the mortgage debt and $800 additional. Appellant and his daughter, by his first wife, were living in the house at the time of this conveyance about a city block distant from appellee, who testified that she had had the records examined; that they showed the title to the lands to be in Hattie Carpenter; that she did not know at the time of the purchase that she had abandoned her husband, and bought the lots in good faith believing that Hattie Carpenter was the owner thereof, as the records in the recorder's office showed her to be.

Appellant testified that he paid all the purchase money for the property; that the deed was taken in his wife's name; that he came near dying in 1900 and, after getting up, discussed with his wife the homestead law, telling her if he died she would have to keep the homestead until the youngest child became of age. His wife objected to staying in Arkansas and said she would not stay and keep the home if he were to die. They then talked about making a will and leaving it so it could be sold by her in case of his death, but that was not satisfactory to him, he said, and, "Then we talked about a deed to her, so that if I died she could sell the home and go back and buy a home for the family. I studied the matter over, and we talked it over many times, and it was understood and agreed that if I did that way that it was still to be mine just the same as before, that it was still my property and my home for myself and my children, and that my daughter, Bernice, was to have her share in it just the same, and the deed was changed only for that one use and purpose, that is so that she could sell it when I died and reinvest it in another home, and that then Bernice should have a voice in selecting the new home, or her share out of it in cash. I had faith in my wife, and, after studying it over for a considerable time, I decided to do it, for I feared that after I died she would abandon the place, as she said she would, and, no matter how nice a home I had, it would go to ruin before the youngest child came of age. We clearly understood the situation and the agreement, both of us. * * * When the De Witt property was purchased, a deed was made to my wife with exactly the same agreement and understanding as when I made the deed to her for the Stuttgart property. * * * I certainly would not have bought that nice home and left my daughter, Bernice, out of it if I hadn't thought and believed her agreements would be kept, that I would always have it for a home, and that Bernice would have her share in it just the same as if it had been in my name."

Mrs. Hattie Carpenter left home in March, 1906, with her five children, and remained away until March, 1908, supporting herself and family during the time. She returned in 1908 and, without objection, testified about as did appellant, first saying: "It was in 1909, August, this property was put in my name for a home for us all, and because I desired, if Mr. Carpenter was to die and leave me with those children, to leave De Witt and get into a better location without waiting until the children would become of age, which I would have to have done if the deed had been in his name." She also stated that, at the time she made the conveyance of the property to appellee, she understood it belonged to her, and that she had the right to convey it, and her letters to appellee, in evidence relating to...