Crouch v. Crouch

• Decision Date: 21 November 1966
• Docket Number: No. 5--4024,5--4024
• Citation: 408 S.W.2d 495,241 Ark. 447
• Parties: Robert L. CROUCH et al., Appellants, v. John CROUCH et al., Appellees.
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

Page 495

408 S.W.2d 495

241 Ark. 447

Robert L. CROUCH et al., Appellants, v. John CROUCH et al., Appellees.

No. 5--4024.

Supreme Court of Arkansas.

Nov. 21, 1966.

Kirsch, Cathey & Brown, Paragould, for appellants.

Rhine & Rhine, Paragould, for appellees.

WARD, Justice.

This litigation is between the heirs of W. M. Crouch, deceased, over certain lands, involving also certain grantees of two of said heirs. There appears to be no dispute over the pertinent facts, the only question for determination being one of law.

Facts. W. M. Crouch, a widower, procured a Donation Certificate in 1932 from the State for 160 acres of land. He made some improvements on the land but died in 1933 before a donation deed was made by the State. However, the donation undertaken was completed in 1935, and the State executed a deed conveying the land to 'W. M. Crouch Estate'. W. M. Crouch left seven children, one having since died leaving six children.

In 1958 the lands forfeited for taxes. At the tax sale one of the sons (John) bought the north eighty acres for $13.97, and another son (Adolph) bought the south eighty acres for $11.40. Each one received a tax deed. Later these two sons conveyed the 160 acres to Harold J. Conrad and his wife.

Suit filed. On or about March 16, 1965 the heirs of the deceased (except, of course, John and Adolph) filed a complaint in chancery court against John and Adolph and their grantee, seeking a 5/7 interest in said lands and asking that the lands be sold (if they cannot be divided) and the proceeds divided among the several parties as their interests appeared.

After a trial, the court made, in essence, the following findings: (a) The plaintiffs are not barred by laches or adverse possession; (b) the heirs of the deceased received no interest in the said lands by reason of the donation deed because said deed was void, having been made to 'W. M. Crouch Estate'. Accordingly the complaint was dismissed, and title to the land was quieted in Harold J. Conrad and his wife.

From the above decree appellants now prosecute this appeal for a reversal.

The decisive issue involved is whether the deed from the State to the 'W. M. Crouch Estate' conveyed the 160 acres of land to the heirs of said W. M. Crouch, there being no dispute as to who the heirs are.

It is the contention of appellees that every valid deed must have a grantee, and that the words 'W. M. Crouch Estate' do not constitute a 'grantee' as contemplated by law, citing authorities which we deem it unnecessary to discuss in view of the conclusion we hereafter reach.

We think the deed in question was valid for the following reasons. Ark.Stat.Ann. § 10--929 (Repl.1956), in pertinent part, reads:

'In case the donee should die before the expiration of the time herein required to submit final proof of the right to perfect, the same shall extend, first to the widow of the donee, and if she be dead, then to the children of such donee * * *.'

In the early case of McCracken v. Sisk, 91 Ark. 452 (p. 457), 121 S.W. 725 (p. 727), the facts were very much the same as here, and the Court said:

'In the case at hand the donee died before the expiration of the time required by the statute to submit final proof of the right to a perfect donation. In that event the right to perfect the donation and submit final proof thereof was by the statute extended to the widow in her own right as an original donee, and to the exclusion of all children, if there had been any, and to the exclusion of all other persons. Upon making the final proof the widow was entitled to, and did, receive a deed to the land from the state in her own right and as her individual property, and which she could thereafter alienate as her separate estate.'

In the case under consideration it is not disputed that the State deeded the land as heretofore stated, and we will presume, in the absence of proof to the contrary, that all necessary prerequisites had been...