Crook v. Rider
| Decision Date | 20 November 1922 |
| Docket Number | 273 |
| Citation | 245 S.W. 41,156 Ark. 1 |
| Parties | CROOK v. RIDER |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Appeal fro Yell Chancery Court, Dardanelle District; W. E. Atkinson Chancellor; affirmed.
STATEMENT OF FACTS.
J. L Rider brought this suit in equity against F. M. Crook to quiet his title to an undivided one-half interest in two lots in the town of Ola, Yell County, Ark. The defendant denied that the plaintiff had any interest whatever in the lots, and asserted title in himself.
It appears from the record that the lots were originally owned by T. M. Morris, and that he exchanged them with C. R Sudberry for a tract of land in Yell County, Ark. T. M Morris executed a deed to the lots in controversy to C. R Sudberry and J. L. Rider. Several months later Sudberry returned the deed from Morris to himself and Rider and received a deed from Morris to himself to said lots. Subsequently Sudberry conveyed said lots to defendant, Crook, for the sum of $ 600. Crook received possession of the lots from Sudberry.
J. L. Rider was a witness for himself. According to his testimony, he met Charles R. Sudberry, who owned 240 acres of land about 26 miles from Ola, in Yell County, Ark. Sudberry listed this land with R. D. McMullen for sale. Subsequently Sudberry interested Rider in the place, and offered to give him a one-half interest in all money or property he should receive for it. The fields were growing up, and the fences and houses had become badly out of repair. Rider cleared up some of the land and fixed the fences and houses in good repair. He also made a crop of corn and cotton on the place in 1917, and, after he had laid by his crops, estimated that he would make two and a half bales of cotton and 200 bushels of corn. In the fall of 1917, corn was worth $ 1.50 a bushel and cotton was worth twenty cents per pound. The land was exchanged by Sudberry with Morris for the town property in Ola, in September, 1917. R. D. McMullen prepared the deed from Morris to the town property, and Sudberry and Rider were both named as grantees in the deed. Rider informed Crook of his interest in the town lots before the latter purchased them from Sudberry. In this respect the testimony of Rider is corroborated.
On the other hand, F. M. Crook testified that he purchased the property from C. R. Sudberry and paid him $ 600 for it, which was it full value. He denied that he knew that J. L. Rider claimed any interest in the property at the time he purchased it, or that he ever told any one that he had been informed that Rider had an interest in the property. His testimony in this respect is also corroborated. The evidence on the question of notice will be stated more in detail in the opinion.
The chancellor found the facts in favor of the plaintiff, and a decree was entered accordingly in his favor.
To reverse that decree the defendant has duly prosecuted an appeal to this court.
Decree affirmed.
M. L. Davis, J. T. Bullock and A. S. Hays, for appellant.
Purchasers of land are required to spread upon the record evidence of their ownership; and if others suffer from their neglect the law will not recognize such ownership. C. & M. Dig., sec. 855; 70 Ark. 256; 1 Warv. Vendors, 542; Webb, Record of Title, § 168; 2 Sugden, Vendors, 978; 46 Mo. 239; 38 F. 455. Where one purchases land in good faith and for a valuable consideration, and enters into possession, he acquires a good title as against an unrecorded title of a prior purchaser. 56 Ark. 39. Proof of notice of an unrecorded deed must be established like any other fact. 23 R. C. L. 264; 20 R. C. L. 340; 3 Am. Rep. 249; 64 Am. Dec. 234.
Wilson & Chambers and R. F. Sandlin, for appellee.
Where one has an opportunity of reading a deed before signing same, ignorance of its contents cannot be pleaded in an action to set it aside. 196 S.W. 1065; 71 Ark. 185. Where one executes and delivers a deed for the conveyance of land, the title vests in the grantee, and he cannot divest himself of it by merely canceling the deed or surrendering it to the grantor. 52 Ark 483. Destruction of a deed after delivery does not affect its title. 108 Ark. 491; 220 S.W. 904. A grantor is not reinvested with title by surrender of the deed by the grantor. 224 S.W. 467; 220 S.W. 469. The appellant had actual notice. 135 Ark. 205; 20 R. C. L. 340; 71 Ark. 31; 77 Ark. 309; 94 Ark. 503; 125 Ark. 441; 137 Ark. 18; 238 S.W. 19.
OPINIONHART, J., (after stating the facts).
It is established by the evidence that when Sudberry exchanged his farm for the town lots in question with Morris, the latter executed a deed to said town lots to Sudberry and Rider. This fact is testified to by R. D. McMullen. It is true that Morris stated that he did not know that Rider was concerned in the transaction, but he admits that some months afterwards Sudberry returned his deed to the town lots in which both Sudberry and Rider were named as grantees, and that he executed another deed to the property in which Sudberry alone was named as grantee. This clearly establishes the fact that Morris conveyed the town lots to Sudberry and Rider as tenants in common. Sudberry is not a party to this action, and does not ask any relief against Rider. The subsequent destruction or surrender...
To continue reading
Request your trial