Doyle v. Davis

• Decision Date: 12 February 1917
• Docket Number: 168
• Citation: 192 S.W. 229,127 Ark. 302
• Parties: DOYLE v. DAVIS
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

192 S.W. 229

127 Ark. 302

DOYLE v. DAVIS

No. 168

Supreme Court of Arkansas

February 12, 1917

Appeal from Faulkner Chancery Court; Jordan Sellers, Chancellor affirmed.

Decree affirmed.

Brundidge & Neelly, for appellants.

1. The sole question is whether or not the act of George Elder in causing the deed to be made to wife was intended as a gift or not. Elder could not buy again, in his own name, so he paid the purchase price and had the deed made in his wife's name and thereby a resulting trust was created. 117 Ark. 575; 40 Id. 62; 64 Id. 155; 71 Id. 373; 89 Id. 578; 103 Id. 273; 105 Id 318; 169 U.S. 407; 98 Ark. 542. The presumption of a gift was overcome. 98 Ark. 542; 21 Cyc. 1297; 2 Pom., Eq. Jur., 1041.

J. C. & Wm. J. Clark, for appellees.

1. The law of this case is well settled. The burden was on appellants. 117 Ark. 575 does not apply. The presumption is that it was a gift to his wife. No trust is proven. All the acts of Elder show that Mrs. Elder was the absolute owner.

OPINION

SMITH, J.

The St Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Company, by its deed dated November 29, 1892, conveyed to Bettie E. Elder, the lands here in controversy; but it is alleged by appellants that the conveyance was thus made to her, instead of to her husband, G. D. Elder, because he had contracted to purchase this land from the railway company, but had defaulted in his payments, and a rule of that company forbid the making of a second contract with a person who had defaulted in a prior one, and that he, therefore, had the contract for the purchase of the land made in the name of his wife, but that he advanced and furnished the consideration for the deed intending all the while that the purchase should inure to his benefit.

Bettie Elder died January 26, 1894, leaving surviving her certain minor children, who were the plaintiffs below in the action brought to recover the possession of the property, and are the appellees here.

On October 6, 1901, G. D. Elder entered into a contract with one G. W. Hunt for a lease of the land, with an option to purchase. The names of his children were recited as parties to this contract, although they did not sign it. Hunt assigned this contract to one D. M. Doyle, who later died, and his wife and administrator tendered performance of its unfinished conditions. Appellees, as heirs of their mother, declined to accept the tender of the unpaid purchase money and brought this suit to recover possession of the land.

Appellants, in their brief, say:

"The sole question we desire to raise upon this appeal is whether or not the act of G. D. Elder, causing the deed from the Iron Mountain Railway Company to be made to his wife, was intended as a gift or not."

Appellants contend that by the payment of the purchase money for the purpose of evading the rules of the railroad company there is a resulting trust in favor of the husband. The court below found otherwise, and this appeal has been prosecuted to reverse that decision.

Elder testified that he caused the deed to be made in his wife's name because the railroad company refused to make a deed to him, and that he paid the purchase money, and that he exercised ownership of and control over the land, but that it belonged to his wife. He also testified that he executed the lease contract of October 29, 1901, to convey his right of courtesy as husband of Bettie Elder, and that in executing this contract, he was representing himself as well as his children, although he did not sign their names to the contract, and no attempt is made to show that he had this authority.

On December 30, 1912, Elder deeded his courtesy right to his children.

There was testimony in regard to certain statements made by. Elder after the death of his wife which tended to show his claim of the title to the land. But we think these self-serving statements can not be considered. The testimony shows that Elder never, at any time undertook to have asserted a trust in his favor, but in the lease under which appellants seeks to assert title, Elder recited the names of his children as grantors. Elder was asked this question:

"State whether or not this land, after it was conveyed to Bettie Elder by this deed, was it your property, or the property of the plaintiffs in this case by inheritance from their mother after her death?"

He answered:

"One-half of that by inheritance, and the other deeded to them by me."

It is argued that this answer shows that Elder did not at any time consider his wife the sole owner. But this is not necessarily the case. The witness had a courtesy interest, and as he was sixty years...