Files v. Law
| Decision Date | 21 December 1908 |
| Parties | FILES v. LAW |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Appeal from Ashley Circuit Court; Henry W. Wells, Judge; affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
A. W Files, pro se.
George W. Norman, for appellee.
Appellant instituted this action in the circuit court of Ashley County against appellee to recover possession of a tract of land containing about thirty-three acres, and a trial thereof resulted in a judgment in appellee's favor. Appellant owned the land originally, and appellee claims title under an execution sale to A. H. Norman in the year 1877, on a judgment for debt rendered by the circuit court of the United States in favor of J. M. Robinson & Company against appellant. Both parties claim to have had adverse possession of the land for more than seven years continuously next before the commencement of the action. The testimony is not very satisfactorily abstracted, but there appears to have been enough to have sustained a verdict either way on this issue.
Appellant insists that the judgment of J. M. Robinson & Company against him in the Federal court, on which the auction sale to Norman was based, was invalid, but the record does not sustain him, for the certified copy of the judgment in this record shows it to be valid on its face, and appellant proves no grounds for avoiding it. He claims also to have redeemed the land from the execution sale, but the record fails in this particular, too, to sustain him. He contends that about a month before the execution sale he conveyed the land to his son, E. W. Files, and that upon the death of his son without issue in 1881 he inherited the land. The deed to his son, exhibited in the record, is void for uncertainty in the description of the land. Besides, the deed was never recorded until about five years after its execution and after the death of his son, and the testimony tends to show that his son never took possession of the land. The conveyance to his son was therefore of no avail against a purchaser without notice at the execution sale.
So the testimony is sufficient to sustain the verdict of the jury either on the ground that appellee had title under the execution sale or by adverse possession.
Appellant complains of error of the court in giving and refusing to give instructions, but he fails to set forth the instructions so that we can see what the court gave. The only two instructions which are copied in the abstract and brief we do not...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Aetna Life Insurance Company of Hartford Conn. v. Duncan
...The court will not explore the record to discover an error of the trial court where the appellant neglects to set it out in his abstract. 88 Ark. 449; 100 Ark. 328. No matter what the of the notice of loss may be, if it operates to bring the attention of the insurer to the loss it is suffic......
-
Wallace v. Strickler
...set out in his abstract all the instructions given, it will be presumed that the jury were properly instructed. 75 Ark. 347; 90 Ark. 230; 88 Ark. 449; 85 123; 75 Ark. 571. A broker is entitled to his commission when he procures a purchaser who is willing and able to buy on the terms named. ......
- Myers v. Wheatley
-
Davis v. Spann
... ... contention is correct. It is our duty, therefore, to sustain ... the findings of the chancellor. It is the duty of an ... appellant to abstract the record so as to show that the ... judgment or decree appealed is erroneous; otherwise we ... indulge the presumption that it is correct. Files v ... Law, 88 Ark. 449, 115 S.W. 373; Shorter ... University v. Franklin, 75 Ark. 571, 88 S.W ... Appellants ... do not even abstract the letter which they claim constituted ... the authority of Judge Thomason to sell the timber, nor do ... they refer to it in the record ... ...