Graves v. Simms Oil Company

• Decision Date: 05 November 1934
• Docket Number: 4-3544
• Citation: 75 S.W.2d 809,189 Ark. 910
• Parties: GRAVES v. SIMMS OIL COMPANY
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

75 S.W.2d 809

189 Ark. 910

GRAVES v. SIMMS OIL COMPANY

4-3544

Supreme Court of Arkansas

November 5, 1934

Appeal from Ouachita Circuit Court, Second Division; W. A. Speer Judge; affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

Lawrence E. Wilson and Jones & Jones, for appellant.

Gaughan Sifford, Godwin & Gaughan, for appellee.

OPINION

MCHANEY, J.

The subject-matter of this litigation has heretofore been considered by this court in three separate cases. The first was Mason v. Graves, 167 Ark. 678, 265 S.W. 667, not officially reported, 167 Ark. 678, 265 S.W. 667; the second was Hildebrand v. Graves, 169 Ark. 210, 275 S.W. 524; and the third was Murphy v. Graves, 170 Ark. 180, 279 S.W. 359.

Appellant was formerly Mary Murphy, the widow of Larkin Murphy who died intestate in the year 1878, the owner of 160 acres of land in Ouachita County, and leaving surviving him appellant and two children, Joe and Drucilla. This land constituted the homestead of Larkin Murphy, and Mary, his widow, continued to occupy it as a homestead after his death. She thereafter married Graves, and three children, Luther, Mary and Martha, were born of this union. In 1884, on the application of Mary Murphy Graves, widow of Larkin Murphy, the probate court entered an order vesting the title to said land in Mary Murphy Graves on the ground that the value of the whole estate of Larkin Murphy was less than $ 300. In the case of Hildebrand v. Graves, supra, it was held that this order was void because the land constituted the homestead of Larkin Murphy, who left minor children.

In 1897 appellant conveyed the middle one-third of said tract, fifty-three and one-third acres, to Will Newton, who had married Drucilla Murphy, by deed purporting to convey the fee simple title. By deeds of 1905 and 1911 purporting to convey a like title, she conveyed the west one-third of said tract to Luther Graves, a son by her second husband. She occupied the house on the east end of the tract, called the home tract. In 1913 she made a gift to her daughters, Mary and Martha of the east one-third of said tract, to Mary the west half of the east fifty-three and one-third acres, and to Martha the east half thereof. Mary had intermarried with Henry Murphy at that time. These daughters made improvements on the tracts given them by their mother, entered into possession thereof, and have lived thereon since that time; their mother, appellant, living with them. On May 22, 1922, appellant executed deeds to Mary and Martha to the respective parts she had theretofore given them, which deeds were shortly thereafter placed of record,--that to Mary being recorded May 30, and that to Martha June 3, 1922. On June 12, 1922, one P. T. Hildebrand secured a deed from Drucilla Newton, the sole heir at law of Larkin Murphy, then living, to the whole 160-acre tract, and on June 17, 1922, he secured a deed from appellant's daughters, said Mary and Martha, to the same tract. On June 20, 1922, Hildebrand executed an oil and gas lease to George R. Gordon, and through mesne conveyances and assignments, title to the lease vested in appellee on July 29, 1922. Hildebrand reconveyed the land their mother had deeded them to Mary and Martha, excepting the mineral rights. On June 22, he executed to Mary and Martha mineral deeds, subject to said lease, covering an undivided half interest in two 20-acre tracts. Thereafter, oil was discovered in large quantities on said land, that is, the east one-third of said tract, by appellee, which gave rise to this and the former litigation heretofore mentioned.

This action was brought by appellant in September, 1933, in which she asserted a claim of dower. She alleged that the oral gifts to her daughters, Mary and Martha, were upon condition that they were to take effect only upon her death, and that she retained and reserved to herself during her life all her rights, interests and property in said tracts so given, and all the rents and profits therefrom, with the right of occupancy and possession, and all taxes to be paid in her name, with all rights of homestead, dower, etc., and that she executed and delivered the deeds of conveyance to Mary and Martha upon like conditions. She sought a recovery of and from appellee of the value of the oil which it is alleged it had wrongfully taken from the east one-third of said original tract. Appellee answered admitting some of the allegations of the complaint and denying others. It set out its title as above mentioned, for which it paid a...