Edwards v. Locke

• Decision Date: 29 April 1918
• Docket Number: (No. 323.)
• Citation: 203 S.W. 286
• Parties: EDWARDS et al. v. LOCKE.
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

203 S.W. 286

EDWARDS et al. v. LOCKE.

(No. 323.)

Supreme Court of Arkansas.

April 29, 1918.

Appeal from Sharp Chancery Court; Geo. T. Humphries, Chancellor.

Suit by Elizabeth P. Locke against Ira T. Edwards and another. From decree rendered, defendant named appeals. Affirmed.

John H. Locke was the owner of certain lands in Sharp county, which he occupied as his homestead. In March, 1904, for an express consideration of $1,000 he executed a warranty deed conveying the lands to his daughter, Elizabeth Locke. Sarah Locke, his wife, and the mother of Elizabeth, joined in the conveyance releasing and relinquishing her rights of dower and homestead. The daughter lived with her mother and father. Her father died in July, 1908, and her mother in January, 1914. At the time of the death of John Locke, Ira Edwards, a grandson, lived with him and continued thereafter to reside with his grandmother and aunt. September 20, 1909, Elizabeth Locke executed her warranty deed to Ira Edwards for the lands, which had been conveyed to her by her father, containing in all 300 acres, more or less. The consideration named in the deed was $10 cash in hand, and the further consideration that Edwards had supported and cared for Elizabeth Locke and her mother for the past six years, and had entered into an obligation to continue such support for the remaining years of their lives and for the love and affection that she had for her nephew. On the same day Edwards entered into a written contract with Elizabeth Locke, duly acknowledged and signed by both, in which Edwards agreed, for and in consideration of the conveyance to him of the lands of Elizabeth Locke, described in the deeds on the same date, to obligate himself to care for, maintain, and support his aunt Elizabeth Locke and his grandmother Sarah Locke for and during their natural lives, and she obligated herself to execute the deed, which she did as above stated.

On the 12th of October, 1912, Edwards and Elizabeth Locke executed a deed of trust on the lands mentioned to W. A. Edwards, trustee, for the purpose of securing Clay Sloan for a loan of $700. On the 19th of November the appellee filed this suit in the Sharp chancery court against Edwards and Sloan, in which she alleged that she was the owner of the lands described in her complaint, and also that she was the owner of certain personal property which her father had sold and devised to her, which she also described. She set up and exhibited a deed from her father as her source of title to the lands. She alleged that she was illiterate; that she did not understand the contents of the deed she had executed to appellant, copy of which was exhibited; that appellant had taken charge of the lands and the personal property belonging to her and had had the entire control and management of the same since the death of her father, using the rents and profits therefrom as his own; that appellant had sold 40 acres of the land against her will and had mortgaged the land to Clay Sloan for $700; that she did not sign or acknowledge the deed of trust to Clay Sloan. Appellee also set up that soon after appellant took charge of the property he began to squander the same in a reckless manner, and that he neglected appellee and her mother and by his dissipation and abuse subjected them to great indignities and humiliations, and that after the death of her mother his conduct towards appellee continued and became intolerable, compelling her at last to leave her home and seek protection among relatives. Appellee alleged that the deed to appellant was executed through fraud, misrepresentation, false pretense, intimidation, and duress; that the consideration for the deed and contract which she entered into with appellant had wholly failed. She prayed for a cancellation of the deed and contract and that the mortgage to Sloan be declared fraudulent and same be canceled and that she have a decree for the personal property.

Appellant Edwards filed a general demurrer to the complaint, and also answered admitting that appellee's father had conveyed to her the lands in controversy, and the execution of the deed from the appellee to him and to his contract with her. He admitted that he sold a 40-acre tract of the land and the execution of the deed of trust to Sloan, and denied all the other material allegations of the complaint, and set up that in 1904 he entered into a verbal contract with his grandfather, by the terms of which the grandfather gave appellant all his personal property in order to induce appellant to take charge of his grandfather's farm and other business and to take care of him and his wife and the appellee, and alleged that he performed his contract by supporting his grandparents until their death, and that since the execution of the deed made by the appellee to appellant the latter had complied with his part of the contract; that he was still willing and able to continue to carry out his part of the contract; that the deed by appellee to him was made upon the consideration of $10 therein named; and that he take care of appellee and her mother. Appellant further alleged that he and appellee lived together until 1915, at which time appellee took a notion to marry one Murphy, and from that time until she left home she became disagreeable and wanted the land back. He denied categorically all charges of fraud in the procuring of the deed and all charges of personal misconduct towards and abuse of the appellee, and also pleaded ratification, laches, and estoppel. He alleged in detail the character of the improvements made by him and their value. Appellant prayed to be discharged with his costs, and that if the lands should be adjudged to belong to the appellee that he have a decree for the improvements and have the expenses incurred by him in taking care of and supporting the appellee and her mother and father, and that the same be declared a lien upon the lands in controversy.

Clay Sloan filed a separate answer alleging the execution by the appellant and the appellee of the deed of trust mentioned in the complaint to secure a loan made by him to them for $700. He alleged that the appellee signed and acknowledged the mortgage with the full understanding of the terms and conditions therein; that he made the loan and took the mortgage in all good faith without knowledge of any possibility of litigation between the appellant and the appellee as to the title of the property. He prayed that the mortgage be declared a valid lien upon the lands described therein, regardless of the result of the suit between the appellant and the appellee, and that he recover all his costs.

The cause was heard upon the pleas, exhibits, certain documentary evidence, and the depositions of witnesses. The court found that the contract and the deed of conveyance between the appellant and the appellee mentioned in the pleadings were executed on the same day, and should be taken together and construed as one instrument and contract. The court also found that the deed of trust was executed and was security for a loan from Sloan to appellant; that as between the appellee and the appellant the debt was that of appellant, but that as to Sloan it was the debt of both of them and constituted a valid lien on the property described therein; that the personal property involved was the property of the appellant. The court further found that Edwards had failed to carry out his contract to support and maintain the appellee, and by his conduct towards her he had rendered her condition intolerable and that the consideration for the deed and contract had failed; that appellant had practiced fraud and deceit upon the appellee in the procuring of the deed and contract; that the rents and profits which the appellant had received from the lands in controversy were sufficient to pay him for the improvements which he had placed upon the land; and that therefore he was not entitled to any betterments. The court entered a decree in accordance with its findings, canceling the contract and deed, and quieting the title in the appellee to the lands, and entered decree in favor of Sloan dismissing appellee's complaint as to him for want of equity. The court also dismissed appellant's cross-complaint for improvements, and entered a decree in favor of the appellee against the appellant for the costs.

Sullivan & Chesnut, of Hardy, for appellant. David L. King, of Hardy, for appellee.

WOOD, J. (after stating the facts as above).

1. Appellant contends that the demurrer to the complaint should have been sustained for the reason that the appellee did not tender therein compensation for the betterments nor offer to restore the benefits she received from the appellant. The general rule is that a plaintiff in a suit for the rescission or cancellation of a written instrument should allege in his bill that prior to the institution of his suit he had made a formal tender to restore to the defendant whatever benefits he had received as the result of the transaction, or that he had offered to return such benefits. This principle grows out of the equitable maxim that "he who...