Gibson v. Barrett
Decision Date | 29 April 1905 |
Citation | 87 S.W. 435,75 Ark. 205 |
Parties | GIBSON v. BARRETT |
Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Appeal from Lonoke Chancery Court, JESSE C. HART, Judge.
Geo. Sibly, for appellant.
T. C. Trimble, Sr., Joe T. Robinson and Thos. C. Trimble, Jr., for appellees.
There can be no fraudulent conveyance of a homestead. 43 Ark. 429; 57 Ark. 242; 52 Ark. 493; 52 Ark. 102; 33 Ark. 454, 762. The appellant is not entitled to have the conveyance set aside. 11 Ark. 411, 716; 52 Ark. 171, 389; Kirby's Dig. § 3898; 65 Ark. 373; 66 Ark. 382; 71 Ark. 207; 21 Ill. 445; 68 Mo. 388; 14 How. 519; 69 Mo. 415; 48 Ark. 539. No decree should: have been rendered against Helen M. Barrett. 39 Cal. 688; 11 Ill. 31; 94 Ind. 268; 60 Ind. 245; 93 Ind. 62; 73 N.C. 464. Refusal to annul the conveyance made to Martha C. Thompson was proper. 12 Ark. 172; 94 N.W. 30; 36 L. R. A. 311.
A. B. Barrett purchased one hundred and sixty acres of land, and caused the same to be conveyed to his wife, Helen M. Barrett. They occupied the same as a homestead until the death of the wife, and A. B. Barrett thereafter continued to occupy the land in the same manner. A short time before her death, and while she was occupying it as a homestead, Mrs. Barrett conveyed eighty acres of the land to her daughter, Martha C. Thompson, and the remainder to her husband. At the time of the purchase by the husband and of the conveyance by the wife they were much in debt. Their creditors brought this suit to set aside the conveyance of Mrs. Barrett as fraudulent, and to subject the land to the payment of her debts. Upon final hearing their complaint was dismissed as to the land, and they appealed.
We adopt as the opinion of the court in this case so much of Stanley v. Snyder, 43 Ark. 429, 434, as is in the following language:
Bogan v. Cleveland, 52 Ark. 101, 12 S.W. 159; Carmack v. Lovett, 44 Ark. 180; Pipkin v. Williams, 57 Ark. 242, 21 S.W. 433; Blythe v. Jett, 52 Ark. 547, 13 S.W. 137; Clark Shoe Co. v. Edwards, 57 Ark. 331, 21 S.W. 477; Gray v. Patterson, 65 Ark. 373, 46 S.W. 730; Kennedy v. First Nat. Bank, 36 L.R.A. 311.
The wife is entitled to hold her lands as a homestead, when they are occupied by her and her husband as such. Thompson v. King, 54 Ark. 9, 14 S.W. 925.
Affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Sulcer v. Northwestern Nat. Ins. Co. (of Milwaukee, Wis.)
...in her own property, and that when she does, it comes within the purview of Art. 9, § 3 of the Constitution of Arkansas. Gibson v. Barnett, 75 Ark. 205, 87 S.W. 435. Art. 9, § 6 of the Constitution recognizes that a widow may have a homestead in her own right. When she does, she has no righ......
-
Chastain v. Arkansas Bank & Trust Company
...of a voluntary conveyance thereof by a debtor. 96 Ark. 579; 103 Ark. 145. Conveyance of a homestead is never fraudulent as to creditors. 75 Ark. 205; Id. 109 Ark. 493; 33 Ark. 762; Id. 454; 44 Ark. 180; 43 Ark. 429; 52 Ark. 101; 99 Ark. 45. The lack of jurisdiction was raised in the lower c......
-
South Omaha National Bank v. Boyd
... ... Bogan v. Cleveland, 52 Ark. 101, 12 S.W ... 159; Pipkin v. Williams, 57 Ark. 242, 21 ... S.W. 433; Gibson v. Barrett, 75 Ark. 205, ... 87 S.W. 435 ... The ... tract conveyed to Prosser by Mrs. Maxwell (northeast quarter ... of the ... ...
-
In re Carl, 1926.
...collected by them and other trustees of an expressed trust for moneys due from them in their fiduciary capacity." In Gibson v. Barrett, 75 Ark. 205, 87 S. W. 435, the court said: "The wife is entitled to hold her lands as a homestead, when they are occupied by her and her husband as The sti......