Foster v. Beidler

• Decision Date: 25 June 1906
• Citation: 96 S.W. 175,79 Ark. 418
• Parties: FOSTER v. BEIDLER
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

96 S.W. 175

79 Ark. 418

FOSTER v. BEIDLER

Supreme Court of Arkansas

June 25, 1906

Appeal from Miller Chancery Court; James D. Shaver, Chancellor reversed.

STATEMENT BY THE COURT.

This suit is by appellee against appellant Foster et al. to set aside certain deeds. The complaint alleged that appellee is the only heir of H. M. Beidler, and reached his majority on July 31, 1897; "that H. M. Beidler some time before his death was the owner of a large landed estate in, at and near the city of Texarkana, Arkansas; that he became involved in domestic difficulties, ending in a separation and divorce from his wife, Amanda J. Beidler; that his business was that of speculator in real estate, and that he was threatened and feared that his former wife would bring an action against him for alimony, and thus tie up his property, and interfere with and prohibit his making sales and conveyances to those desiring to purchase, and to provide against which he allowed a large amount of his said property to go delinquent for the non-payment of taxes, and allowed the same to be sold to the State of Arkansas for the non-payment of taxes, and afterwards re-purchased it from the State, taking the title in the name of the defendant, J. H. Beidler, who was his brother, and who was to hold it for him; that, to facilitate sales by the said J. H. Beidler, he afterwards on December 22, 1887, executed deed to the property or the lands for the nominal consideration of $ 7,000, and on April 6, 1888, he executed a deed for certain other property to the said J. H Beidler for the nominal consideration of $ 5,000."

Then follows a recital of other alleged facts to show that J. H Beidler held the lands so conveyed to him in trust for H. M Beilder. The complaint then alleges that J. H. Beidler conveyed certain portions of the property to two of his children without consideration and in violation of the alleged trust, and continues in substance as follows "The said J. H. Beidler purchased large property in Battle Creek, Michigan, and executed his notes therefor, and on February 1, 1890, Joseph L. Foster brought suit against him, and caused an attachment to be levied upon the property heretofore referred to; that said Foster obtained judgment for a large sum in said case, and caused all of said property to be sold thereunder, and bought said property; that said sales were confirmed, and deed executed to the said Joseph L. Foster, who has made deed to numerous parcels of said lands, and on October 10, 1894, conveyed the remainder by quitclaim deed to his son, W. J. Foster, who now holds and controls the same; that all said conveyances should be set aside, save conveyances made by X. F. Beidler to innocent purchasers." The prayer was for the setting aside of conveyances and revesting the property in the plaintiff.

Appellant demurred to the complaint, which was overruled, and he saved his exceptions. Appellant then filed an answer, which, after certain denials of material allegations, is as follows:

"That a large property was purchased near Battle Creek, Michigan, by the said J. H. Beidler, who executed his notes therefor; that Joseph L. Foster, father of this defendant, now deceased, did bring suit against J. H. Beidler on said notes; attachments were issued and levied against the property described in the complaint, which was in the name of J. H. Beidler; said Foster obtained judgment, and said property was sold by order of the court under the attachment, which was duly sustained; and was also in part sold under execution; and both attachment and execution sales were confirmed by the court, and the sheriff of Miller County, Ark., executed to said J. L. Foster his deeds for said property; that, if it be true, as alleged in plaintiff's complaint, that H. M. Beidler was using his property and his brother J. H. Beidler's, name, for the purpose of selling his interest in the real estate to avoid his obligation to his wife for dower and alimony, as admitted in the complaint, it is also true that said Battle Creek, Michigan, property was purchased by H. M. Beidler in the name of J. H. Beidler, for the same purpose; and if, in fact, said J. H. Beidler was trustee for the Texarkana property, he was clothed by said H. M. Beidler with the title to the Texarkana property, whereby the said H. M. Beidler was enabled to purchase the Battle Creek, Michigan, property in the name of the said J. H. Beidler; and if it be true that the said J. H. Beidler was acting as trustee only, the Battle Creek, Michigan, debt was in fact the debt of H. M. Beidler, made in the name of J. H. Beidler, and upon the faith of the property held by the said J. H. Beidler; and this arrangement was made by the said H. M. Beidler with the said J. L. Foster, whereby the Texarkana property in the name of J. H. Beidler was property subject to the debt for the Battle Creek, Michigan, property by the said H. M. Beidler, in the name of said J. H. Beidler; that the debt effected by the said H. M. Beidler with the said Joseph L. Foster was made by the said H. M. Beidler upon the faith of the Texarkana property, and it was intended that any and all of said Texarkana property would respond to the payment of the debt of the Battle Creek, Michigan, property, if the same was not paid at maturity. The defendant states that H. M. Beidler, and any one claiming under him, can not in equity now be heard to claim that the Texarkana property was not subject to the payment of said debt."

Defendant denies that any of the property sold under attachment or execution to J. L. Foster should be declared the property of plaintiff; denies that J. L. Foster or this defendant, W. J. Foster, or his vendees are not in position to claim title to said property; denies that they hold the same without right; then follows allegations of payment of taxes and setting up statute of limitations of seven years. There was a written stipulation that all the exhibits were to be considered in evidence, and that appellant had been in possession since the execution of the deeds under the judgment and execution in the case of J. L. Foster v. J. H. Beidler, which were exhibits, and that appellant and those under whom he claimed had paid all taxes since 21st of February, 1890; that all papers in the case of J. L. Foster v. J. H. Beidler, the attachment suit, were in evidence, and that J. L. Foster purchased the land at attachment and execution sales and credited his judgment in the circuit court with amount of his bid.

The deposition of appellee, so far as material, showed that he was the son of H. M. Beidler, the deceased, and his only heir; that he had heard from his father, when a small boy, that his uncle had no interest in the property, and heard his father say to his uncle in Battle Creek, Michigan, "Now, brother, if anything happens to me, you will, of course, deed all the property to the boy;" and my uncle said: "Why, certainly, brother, there can be no trouble about that;" that no one was present; that he had been led to believe that his father's estate had been held from him, but could get no explanation from his uncle; he was a little over twelve years of age when his father died; can not give dates of the conversation which he stated occurred between his father and his uncle, but thinks it was only a few months before his father's death. He had been on friendly terms with his uncle all the time.

J. H Beidler testified that he held the property in suit under deeds which had been executed to him in trust by his brother, H. M. Beidler. He paid nothing for the property; did not know why it was put in his name. It was understood that he was to make deeds to whomsoever H. M. Beidler directed. He reconveyed the property to H. M. Beidler a few days before the latter's death, except that which he had caused to be deeded to purchasers before his death. He delivered the deeds to his brother before his death, and after his death the deeds and other papers were returned to him. He could not find the deed of the Texarkana property among the papers; says he told the plaintiff that he would do right by him, and did this he says because, being a nonresident, he could not administer on the estate, and thought he could take better care of the estate in the shape it was than to have it administered by strangers. When asked to explain why he and his agent continued in possession of the property conveyed to him by H. M. Beidler, and continued to sell and offer said property for sale after the death of H. M. Beidler, if he knew it did not belong to him, says he did this to meet expenses and outlay; explains his conveyance to his son, X. F. Beidler, by claiming it was for money advanced to pay taxes and traveling expenses, but made no explanation of the conveyance to his daughter, Grace; does not undertake to account for the proceeds of any of his sales, except in the general way of saying they were consumed in paying taxes and expenses; says his son knew nothing about his having the deeds to any of H. M. Beidler's property until last summer, when J. D. Cook came to Lincoln; denies concealing them to defraud the plaintiff; says plaintiff had been angry with him for years on account of not being satisfied with his explanations about his father's estate. He admits mortgaging the property, long after H. M. Beidler's death, but says he did not do it for the purpose of defrauding any one; says: "At the time I thought it for the best." When asked what became of the money, say: "I do not know." When asked when plaintiff was informed and had knowledge of such mortgages, he answers: "I can not say; I do not know; never from me." Says the property at Texarkana was not conveyed to him until long after the debt was created on the Michigan property. He states that in the...