Clark v. Norred

• Decision Date: 20 June 1926
• Docket Number: 2627
• Court: Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US
• Parties: CLARK v. NORRED

4 La.App. 394

CLARK v. NORRED

No. 2627

Court of Appeals of Louisiana, Second Circuit

June 20, 1926

Rehearing Refused June 30, 1926.

Appeal from the Third Judicial District Court of Louisiana, Parish of Jackson. Hon. S.D. Pearce, Judge.

Action by Mrs. Nannie May Clark, et al., against S. B. Norred, et al.

There was judgment for plaintiffs and defendants appealed. Judgment affirmed in part and reversed in part.

Judgment affirmed in part and reversed in part.

E. L Walker, of Ruston, attorney for plaintiffs, appellees.

W. J Hammon, of Jonesboro, Barksdale, Warren & McBride, of Ruston, attorneys for defendants, appellants.

OPINION

ODOM, J.

H. J. Glover died in the parish of Jackson on November 27, 1903, leaving a wife, Mrs. Nannie May Glover, and three children as his sole heirs, to-wit: Henry J. Glover, Homer T. Glover and Walter L. Glover.

He owned, at the time of his death, the following described land belonging to the community which existed between him and his said wife, to-wit: SE 1/4 of NW 1/4; SW 1/4 of NE 1/4; NE 1/4 of SW 1/4; and the W 1/2 of the NW 1/4 of SE 1/4 of Section 5, Township 15 North, Range 3 West, containing 140.00 acres.

About three years later Mrs. Glover married one E. D. Quick who, with his wife and the three Glover children, who were all minors, went to Sabine county, Texas, to reside.

E. D. Quick died about 1920, and Mrs. Quick subsequently married a man named Clark.

Mrs. Clark, and her children above named, all of whom are now of age, reside in the state of Texas.

In August, 1925, after the Glover children had attained the age of majority, they, together with their mother, then Mrs. Clark, brought this suit against the defendants, alleging that they are the owners and entitled to the possession of the 140.00 acres of land above described and that the defendants claimed to own and were in possession of the land under certain deeds and transfers which, they allege, were null and void for reasons specifically set out and which they ask to be cancelled and erased from the records and that they be recognized as the owners and be placed in possession of said land.

The defendants, in answer, denied that plaintiffs are the owners of the land and set up title in themselves.

There was judgment in the lower court in favor of the plaintiffs and against the defendants as prayed for, from which judgments the defendants prosecute this appeal.

OPINION

It is undisputed that plaintiffs are the owners in common of the land in dispute, unless their title thereto has been legally divested.

As a basis of title, they allege and show that said land was purchased by H. J. Glover during the existence of the community between he and his wife, now Mrs. Clark, one of the plaintiffs, who, at the time of his death, owned an undivided half interest in it by virtue of the community, the other undivided half descending to his three children, the other plaintiffs herein.

It is the contention of the plaintiffs that they have not been divested of title.

It is defendants' contention, on the contrary, that plaintiffs have been divested of title and that they are now owners of the land.

There is no deed of record or in existence, so far as the record shows, evidencing a sale by Mrs. Clark, the widow Glover, of her interest in the land. It is contended by defendants, however, but denied by her, that in May or June, 1913, she executed a deed to her interest in the land to one M. E. Norred.

The serious and sole question involved in the case, so far as Mrs. Clark is concerned, is whether she did in fact execute a deed to Norred.

It is not seriously denied by Mrs. Clark that there was at one time, about May or June, 1913, as alleged by defendants, a deed in existence purporting to convey her interest in the land to Norred with her name appended thereto as vendor. She says that she has no knowledge of such a deed and that if there was such the writing of her name thereon was without her sanction or authority and was a forgery.

We conclude, as did the district judge, that Norred at one time was in possession of a deed purporting to convey to him Mrs. Clark's interest in the land; and we further conclude, as did the district judge, that the defendants failed to prove and that under the circumstances they cannot prove Mrs. Clark's genuine signature was attached thereto or that the deed was executed with her sanction or authority.

It is not contended by defendants that Mrs. Clark authorized anyone to execute the deed for her, but they base their cause upon the proposition that she signed the deed in person, and upon that they must stand or fall.

As stated, the alleged and purported deed was not recorded, and it could not be produced on the trial of the case. Norred says he gave the deed to a lawyer; the lawyer says he has no recollection of ever seeing it or having it in his possession. Mrs. Clark having denied that she signed the deed, the defendants attempted to prove that she did.

As bearing upon the point, it is well to recite certain incidents which occurred subsequently to the date on which Mrs. Glover, now Mrs. Clark, was married to E. D. Quick and moved to the state of Texas.

As stated, the widow Glover married E. D. Quick about three years after the death of her husband, Glover. After their marriage they went to Sabine county, Texas, to reside. After reaching Texas Quick concluded to purchase a home for himself and family, and being without means of his own he began negotiations for the sale of his wife's land in Louisiana in order to raise the necessary funds.

M. E. Norred, who resided in Jackson parish, Louisiana, where the land is dispute is located, agreed to purchase the land at an agreed price to be paid in cash. The negotiations for the sale were carried on by Mr. Quick in person. He had his wife to execute a deed conveying her undivided half interest in the land together with one other forty-acre tract which she owned individually to Norred, the deed reciting a cash consideration. This deed was sent to a bank in Jonesboro, Louisiana, to be delivered to Norred upon payment of the price in cash. Norred, it seems, was unable to raise the cash, and the deal was called off and the deed returned.

Mrs. Clark, then Mrs. Quick, admits that she signed that deed.

Pending these negotiations, E. D. Quick purchased some land in Texas in his own name from A. L. McGown, agreeing to pay the purchase price thereof out of the proceeds of the sale of his wife's property in Louisiana. The cash sale of Mrs. Clark's property having been called off, and E. D. Quick, her husband, being therefore unable to pay McGown for the property which he had purchased, Quick and McGown made a trip to Jackson parish, Louisiana, to see what disposition could be made of Mrs. Clark's land. It was found that M. E. Norred was willing to purchase the land on terms of credit. The price and terms, which were arranged by E. D. Quick, were as follows: $ 367.50; $ 50.00 cash and the balance in two notes due in one and two years. In order to make the sale to Norred Mrs. Clark, of course, had to sign the deed. E. D. Quick and McGown returned to the state of Texas where Quick had an attorney by the name of Minton to prepare the deed on the terms above named. The attorney prepared the deed and delivered it to Quick, who left the office of the attorney, stating that he would have the deed signed.

The attorney, Minton, says that subsequently either Mr. Quick alone or Mr. Quick and his wife returned to his office exhibiting the deed purporting to be signed by both Mr. and Mrs. Quick, and acknowledged before a notary. Minton, the attorney, made a draft on Norred for the sum of $ 50.00 and prepared two notes to represent the deferred payments and sent the draft, the two notes and the deed to the Jonesboro State Bank to be accepted by Norred. Norred signed the notes, paid the draft and the notes and cash were returned to Minton by the bank who in turn delivered the cash and the notes to E. D. Quick.

The notes in question were made payable to E. D. Quick and not to his wife. Quick delivered the cash and the notes to McGown in part payment for the land which he had purchased in Texas McGown held the notes until after maturity and presented them for payment. Norred was unable to pay them and on September 8, 1917, Norred, who claims to have held a deed from Mrs. Quick, sold the land to A. L. McGown, the consideration expressed in the deed being "the cancellation and delivery to the said Mack E. Norred of two certain vendor's lien notes against the above land signed by the said Mack E. Norred of date May 14, 1913, and payable to E. D. Quick and maturing November 1, 1913, and November 1, 1914, for the sum of $ 158.75 each".

In order to establish the verity of the purported deed from Mrs. Quick to Norred, defendants took the deposition, by commission, of Minton, the attorney in Texas, who represented E. D. Quick at the time and who wrote many letters about the sale for Quick. He says he saw a deed with the signatures of both Mr. and Mrs. Quick written thereon and purporting to have been acknowledged by them before a notary, but he does not know the name of the notary before whom it was acknowledged, nor the names of the witnesses attached thereto, and he was unable to state whether the deed or the acknowledgment bore the genuine signature of Mrs. Quick, as vendor.

From Minton's testimony as a whole, it appears that Mr. Quick conducted all the negotiations with reference to the sale. He got Minton to prepare the deed. Minton seems to recall the details of the transaction with remarkable accuracy, and, in addition, he retained copies of letters which were written by Quick and by him, which he produced and which were filed in...