Francis v. Turner
| Decision Date | 13 November 1933 |
| Docket Number | 4-3163 |
| Citation | 67 S.W.2d 211,188 Ark. 158 |
| Parties | FRANCIS v. TURNER |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Appeal from St. Francis Chancery Court; Frank H. Dodge, Chancellor on exchange; reversed.
Judgment reversed and cause remanded.
S S. Hargraves, Louis L. Cohen and Mann & Mann, for appellant.
Marvin B. Norfleet, for appellee.
In March, 1929, Charles Turner died in St. Francis County Arkansas, without issue, leaving surviving his widow, Mrs. Marcella E. Turner, and two sisters, Mrs. Alma T. Francis of Munson, Iowa, and Mrs. Sadie B. Purinton of Chicago, Illinois, the sole heirs at law. Soon after Mr. Turner died, his widow accompanied by H. A. Sulzer, went to Forrest City and consulted with an attorney, and after some discussion, at Mrs. Turner's suggestion, Sulzer was appointed administrator and gave bond as such with Mrs. Turner as a surety thereon. Having obtained the information that Turner had some property in Mississippi, Mr. Sulzer and the attorney proceeded to that State where they discovered that Turner had on deposit $ 30,000 in a bank in Tupelo, Mississippi, and an additional sum of $ 316.68 accrued interest. On the day after their return to Forrest City, Mrs. Turner was informed of this, and on the same day she executed to the attorney a power of attorney to convey her interest in some property in Munson, Iowa, owned by her deceased husband in his lifetime. The attorney was further authorized to proceed to the residence of the two sisters for the purpose of securing their interest in the Turner estate. The attorney left on this mission and arrived in Munson, Iowa, on April, 1929, where the secured a deed from Mrs. Francis. He went on to Chicago, arriving there the evening of the next day, and on the day following secured a like deed from Mrs. Purinton. By these two deeds all the interest of these two ladies in the estate of the deceased, Turner, was conveyed to his widow in consideration of the sum of $ 3,000 in cash paid to Mrs. Purinton and the conveyance under the power of attorney to Mrs. Francis of the Munson, Iowa, property at the agreed value of $ 2,000 and $ 1,000 in cash paid to her.
Previous to these events no inventory has been filed, but soon after the return of the attorney to Forrest City with the deeds an inventory was filed. After the death of Turner, his widow wrote two letters to Mrs. Francis who immediately forwarded them to her sister in Chicago. The first letter, written March 23rd, requested information as to the value of her husband's property in Iowa, which was a store building which had been renting for $ 40 per month, and in this letter a suggestion was made that the sisters might take it as their share in the estate. The letter indicated that the value of the estate was small. The next letter was written on April 10th, following, and contained expressions in line with the letter of March 23rd. The general effect of these letters was that the widow found herself left with very limited resources. When these letters were written, Mrs. Turner did not know of the large sums on deposit in Mississippi, but she learned this in a day or two after her second letter was written and took no steps to correct the impression her letters were calculated to convey.
This suit was begun by the sisters filing a complaint in the St. Francis Chancery Court alleging that the deeds had been secured through false representations regarding the value of the estate which induced them, with the information they had previously received from Mrs. Turner, to believe that the estate was much smaller than it really was; that the representations made were relied upon, and in reliance upon the same the deeds were executed. Certain allegations were made whereby liability against the administrator in his settlement was sought to be established. Testimony was adduced for the plaintiffs and the defendants, Mrs. Turner and the administrator, and at the trial the court found that the conveyances were not procured by fraud, the complaint was without equity, and the same was dismissed. The decree, in so far as it related to the administrator, is not challenged by the appeal.
To support the finding and judgment of the trial court in upholding the conveyances attacked, appellees invoked two familiar principles recognized by this court from the earliest times: (1) the finding of the chancellor is highly persuasive and will be sustained unless it is against the preponderance of the evidence, and (2) that, in cases where fraud is alleged as a foundation for a cause of action to entitle the party asserting it to the relief prayed, the fraud must be clearly proved.
With these fundamental rules in mind, we proceed to an examination of the evidence relating to the procurement of the deeds questioned, viewed in the light of the interest or bias of these witnesses to be inferred and the attendant circumstances established in connection with another settled principle, namely, that an attorney for an estate represents the heirs and distributees and legatees to the extent that it becomes his duty, where the value of the estate is material to those interested in dealing between themselves or others, not only to refrain from making any misrepresentation or concealment, but to also fully disclose the value of the estate and its probable assets, so that all interested may exercise an informed judgment. 23 C. J. 1170, § 387.
The dealings of the attorney with the two sisters may be treated as a single transaction in so far as the representations made by him in consummating the purpose of his visits to them is concerned. As to this the evidence is in conflict. The two sisters and Mrs. Purinton's attorney who was present when her deed was procured, testifying on the part of the appellants, were sharply disputed by the testimony of the Arkansas attorney and his wife who accompanied him on his journey. These five persons were the only witnesses to the transactions. The testimony of the witnesses for the appellants tended to establish these facts: that the attorney from Arkansas correctly advised them regarding the law of descent and distribution in Arkansas, but did not advise them of the items of property going to make up the corpus of the estate, stating that the value of the estate was about $ 12,000. He offered them $ 3,000 each for their respective interests,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
City Nat. Bank v. Sternberg
...The court held that this was a sufficient allegation of fraud and deceit. Appellants call attention to the case of Francis v. Turner, 188 Ark. 158, 67 S.W.2d 211, 213. It is there stated, among other things: "It is our opinion, accepting at its face value the statements of the attorney rela......
-
City National Bank v. Sternberg
... ... was a sufficient allegation of fraud and deceit ... Appellants ... call attention to the case of Francis v ... Turner, 188 Ark. 158, 67 S.W.2d 211. It is there ... stated, among other things: "It is our opinion, ... accepting [195 Ark. 509] at its ... ...
-
Torian's Estate v. Smith
...estate and the devisees of the Mississippi lands would be free of taxes "with a million dollars worth of land." In Francis v. Turner, 188 Ark. 158, 67 S.W.2d 211 (1933), we stated that it was a settled principle "that an attorney for an estate represents the heirs and distributees and legat......
-
Morris v. Cullipher
...property is acquired. Id. Morris Jr. cites a 1933 case in support of his position that Texas law should apply. See Francis v. Turner, 188 Ark. 158, 67 S.W.2d 211 (1933). In Francis our court did appear to honor Mississippi law to determine title to a Mississippi bank account, though the dec......