Green v. Clyde

• Decision Date: 29 October 1906
• Citation: 97 S.W. 437,80 Ark. 391
• Parties: GREEN v. CLYDE
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

97 S.W. 437

80 Ark. 391

GREEN v. CLYDE

Supreme Court of Arkansas

October 29, 1906

Appeal from Garland Chancery Court; Leland Leatherman, Chancellor affirmed.

Decree affirmed.

White & Altheimer and Rose, Hemingway, Cantrell & Loughborough, for appellants.

1. The original title to the land in dispute was in the United States. 26 Ark. 168. And the record title is in appellants.

2. The evidence fails to establish either fraud or mistake in the award of the commissioners.

3. The award of the commissioners was final. 111 U.S. 289; 158 U.S 166; 44 P. 807; 34 Ark. 220.

4. Green is not estopped by his own conduct and admission to claim the land in dispute. Clyde had equal access to the records and equal opportunity to learn the true location and boundary of the tract as Green had. 19 Ark. 531; 46 Ark. 337; 47 Ark. 335; 15 Ark. 55.

Wood & Henderson, for appellee.

1. The commissioners made a mistake in awarding to Cutter that portion of the land embraced in lot 3, block 103, not claimed by him, instead of awarding it to Anna K. Morris, who did claim it. Where one party has acquired the legal title to property to which another has a better right, equity will convert him into a trustee of the party having the better right and compel him to convey the legal title. 111 U.S. 276; 147 U.S. 47; 35 P. 91; 33 S.E. 116; 151 U.S. 420; 145 U.S 317; 147 U.S. 242; 38 P. 1070; 10 Rose, Notes, 806; 54 Ark 251; 130 U.S. 122; 47 Ark. 203; 5 Rose, Notes, 835, Ib. 34; 7 Ballard, Real Estate, 720; 66 U.S. 352.

2. Clyde and Green both derived their rights from the same source, that is, from Jones, and Green is estopped to deny Clyde's rights. The obligation created by an estoppel binds the grantor and his privies in estate in blood and in law. 11 Am. & Eng. Enc. Law, 394; 49 Am. Dec. 379; 2 Herman on Estoppel, 719 et seq.; 11 HOW. 297; 21 HOW. 229; 33 Ark. 201, 202; 1 Greenleaf on Ev. 523.

OPINION

HILL, C. J.

Clyde Jr., a minor, by next friend, brought suit for a tract of land claimed to have been inherited from his father, Clyde, Sr., against Mariah V. Greene and Peter Greene, her husband, and some vendees of theirs for a part of the lot. There is little dispute over the salient features of the case.

The land was a part of the Hot Springs Reservation, and was owned by the United States Government. Congress passed an act in 1877 for its disposition, and created the Hot Springs Commission. Parties who had made improvements upon the Reservation were permitted to purchase the land containing the improvements from the Government; and the commission was authorized to determine the rights of occupants and claimants as to what each should be entitled to purchase and to fix prices therefor.

One Jones fenced several acres of land on the Reservation, and his improvement was the common source of title to these litigants. Jones sold one tract to Anna K. Morris, another to J. T. Morris, and another to Charles Cutter.

The Anna K. Morris claim fronted on a road, afterwards called "Hawthorne Street," and extended to another road called "New Courthouse Road;" the J. T. Morris claim fronted on this latter road, and extended along the Anna Morris claim and to its rear from Hawthorne Street. The Morris tracts may be treated as one in this case. Just east of the Ann Morris tract was the Cutter tract, extending along Hawthorne Street to Thornton Ferry Road, afterwards called Ouachita Avenue.

Each of these tracts was purchased from Jones by said parties, and there was no conflict in them, and no overlapping of lines. Application was made to the commission by the Morrises and by Cutter for right to purchase their respective claims, and a plat was attached to each petition showing the land claimed by each claimant, and these plats showed no conflict in the three claims. The Morrises sold part of their tract to Clyde, Sr., the father of the plaintiff in this suit.

The Clyde tract was on the east end of the Morris tracts, and had a frontage of 126 feet and 8 inches along Hawthorne Street, and ran back through both Morris tracts to the north line of the J. T. Morris tract. Clyde went into possession of this tract, erected a dwelling house upon it, which he occupied with his wife and only child, this plaintiff. While occupying this tract, he built a clapboard fence along his east line, between him and the Cutter, afterwards the Greene tract. Clyde died in his house on the tract, and his widow shortly afterwards went to Missouri, carrying the infant with her. She retained possession through tenants of the tract for a year or more after her husband's death, and was then dispossessed by Greene.

Maria V. Greene purchased the Cutter title, and went into possession of the tract, and occupied it. She conveyed to her husband, Peter Greene, an undivided half interest. Peter Greene seems to have been the active party in the matter, Maria V. Greene only appearing as holding the title acquired by Peter Greene. Some time after the commissioners had made their awards of the respective rights of these claimants, an uncle of Clyde, Jr., offered to pay his (young Clyde's) part of the purchase price from the Government, and there seems to have been an understanding that either Clyde, Jr's., uncle or Peter Greene were to make payment when the Morrisses paid their part, so that the payment of the original Jones tract should be made at one payment. Without the knowledge of Clyde's relatives, Peter Greene made the payment to the Government, covering both his and the Clyde tract.

The commissioners widened the Thornton Ferry Road 15 feet on the west side thereof, thereby cutting off that amount from the east end of the Cutter (or Greene) tract.

In conveying the land, for some reason not shown in the record and not explained, the commissioners did not follow the description of the land as claimed by these respective claimants, but described it in lots, not theretofore named and gave a dimension to the lots different from that set forth in the respective plats filed by these claimants. The Cutter or Greene lot was extended back over the Clyde lot, and its west line was just beyond the Clyde home, thus throwing Clyde's home and all east of it to the clapboard fence in the Cutter or Greene tract All that was left of the Clyde lot was a narrow strip along the west line. It does not appear that Peter Greene...