Goodwin v. Tyson
| Decision Date | 26 January 1925 |
| Docket Number | (No. 130.) |
| Citation | 268 S.W. 15 |
| Parties | GOODWIN et al. v. TYSON et al. |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Appeal from Ouachita Chancery Court; Geo. M. Le Croy, Chancellor.
Suit by Mrs. Tyson and others against Mrs. Maggie Goodwin and others. Decree for plaintiffs, and defendants appeal. Reversed and remanded, with directions.
This suit was brought by the widow and three children of Hardy Goodwin on December 21, 1922, to cancel a deed executed by Hardy Goodwin on January 25, 1881, to his only son, Julius C. Goodwin. Retter A. Goodwin, the wife of Hardy Goodwin, joined her husband in the execution of this deed. At that time Hardy Goodwin was in poor health, and his son Julius was in charge of the land conveyed him, which was the homestead of Hardy Goodwin, who lived only a little more than two months after the execution of the deed and died April 11, 1881.
The deed is a warranty deed in form, and after the usual covenant of warranty the following recitals appear:
"It is the true intent and meaning of these presents that if the said Julius C. Goodwin shall covenant, promise, grant and agree to and with the said Hardy C. Goodwin in manner and form following, that is to say that he, the said Julius C. Goodwin, shall and will find and provide support and maintain the said Hardy Goodwin and Retter A. Goodwin during the term of their natural lives, also Laura A. Goodwin, Julia C. Goodwin and Lillie T. Goodwin, during the term of their minority or until they are otherwise provided for, and provided that if the said Julius C. Goodwin, his heirs, executors and administrators shall neglect or refuse to find, provide support and maintain the said Hardy Goodwin, Retter A. Goodwin, Laura A. Goodwin, Julia C. Goodwin and Lilly T. Goodwin, that then in all, any or either of the cases aforesaid, it shall and may be lawful to and for the said Hardy Goodwin, all and singular the premises hereby granted to take, repossess and enjoy, as in his former estate."
In addition to the daughters named in the deed, Hardy Goodwin had another daughter, but she was married at the time and was not living with her father.
The three daughters mentioned in the deed were all minors at that time; Lillie, the youngest, being then only about seven years old.
The undisputed testimony shows that after the death of Hardy Goodwin his son Julius took complete charge of the property, and thereafter all taxes were paid in his own name. Julius was unmarried at the time of his father's death, but he married on December 18, 1881, and brought his wife to the family home to live. Some time later Julius built a new home, which the testimony shows was largely paid for with money which his wife had received from the estate of her father. Mrs. Hardy Goodwin, the grantor's widow, and her three daughters, all lived in the family home until December, 1891, when Laura married and moved away. Julia was the next to marry, and she, too, moved away after her marriage. Thereafter Mrs. Hardy Goodwin and the youngest daughter, Lillie, lived with Julius until March, 1892, when Lillie married and moved away, and her mother went with her. In August of that year Julius died.
After the death of Julius, his widow had homestead and dower assigned her in these lands, and later Mrs. Julius Goodwin and her children moved away, but they have since continuously claimed to be the owner of the land and have kept up the improvements and have paid the taxes and collected the rents, which the testimony shows have been but little more than enough to pay the taxes since 1900.
The lands were shown to have been worth about $2,000 at the time they were conveyed to Julius Goodwin, but they sufficed to make a living for him and his growing family and his mother and three sisters while they lived with him. The undisputed testimony shows that the three daughters contributed to their own support by their labor, and that they assisted in all the work that was done about the farm, and that they worked in the field and assisted in making the crops. But the testimony also shows that this was customary for persons in similar circumstances, and that the girls and their mother were as well provided for as were their neighbors of similar means.
Mrs. Hardy Goodwin joined in this suit with two of her daughters and the heirs of a third daughter, to cancel the deed to Julius Goodwin; but Mrs. Hardy Goodwin died soon after the institution of the suit, and it was revived in the names of her heirs, the other plaintiffs. The court granted the relief prayed, and canceled the deed, and directed that partition of the land be made among the heirs of Hardy Goodwin, and this appeal is from that decree. Other facts will be stated in the opinion.
Kirby & Hays, of Little Rock, for appellants.
Thos. W. Hardy, of Camden, for appellees.
SMITH, J. (after stating the facts as above).
It is first insisted that the deed was void because the agreement to support constituting the consideration therefor was not signed by Julius Goodwin. We think, however, that the deed was not void for the want of mutuality or because Julius Goodwin had not signed it, as appellees insist. The acceptance of the deed was, itself, an assent to its conditions. Fine v. Lasater, 110 Ark. 425, 161 S. W. 1147, Ann. Cas. 1915C, 385; Wood v. Park, 97 Ark. 13, 133 S. W. 175; Whittaker v. Trammell, 86 Ark. 251, 110 S. W. 1041; Boyd v. Lloyd, 86 Ark. 169, 110 S. W. 596.
It is also insisted by appellees that the provision in regard to support was a condition precedent, and that no title passed until the condition had been fully performed. But we do not agree with this contention. The title to the land passed upon the execution and delivery of the deed, subject to be defeated, however, by a failure to perform the condition imposed — that of support. Skipwith v. Martin, 50 Ark. 141, 6 S. W. 514; Cooper v. Green, 28 Ark. 48; Kampman v. Kampman, 98 Ark. 328, 135 S. W. 905; Swaim v. Beakley, 133 Ark. 406, 202 S. W. 476; Terry v....
To continue reading
Request your trial