Haines v. Rumph

• Decision Date: 14 February 1921
• Docket Number: 174
• Citation: 228 S.W. 46,147 Ark. 425
• Parties: HAINES v. RUMPH
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

228 S.W. 46

147 Ark. 425

HAINES v. RUMPH

No. 174

Supreme Court of Arkansas

February 14, 1921

Appeal from Ouachita Chancery Court; J. M. Barker, Chancellor reversed.

Decree reversed, and cause remanded.

Thomas W. Hardy and Mehaffy, Donham & Mehaffy, for appellants.

Plaintiffs to be entitled to recover would have to show either that Haines with whom it was claimed a contract was made and to whom $ 25 was paid, had authority to bind them in the transaction, or that Haines ratified the transaction after full knowledge of the facts; and the evidence is insufficient to sustain the findings of the chancellor on either of these points. 105 Ark. 446; 53 Id. 208; 124 Id 360; 64 Id. 217; 92 Id. 315. Ratification with full knowledge is not shown. 55 Ark. 240; 64 Id. 217; 74 Id. 557; 21 R. C. L. 922-8.

The parties signed the deed without a full knowledge of the facts, and there was no ratification, and there was no delivery of the deed. 24 Ark. 244. Delivery was necessary and there was none. 8 R. C. L., § 53; Ib., § 57.

Powell & Smead, for appellees.

1. The evidence sustains the findings of the chancellor. If there was either a sufficient delivery of the deed so as to pass title, or if there was a ratification of the contract by G L. Haines and Grace Tannehill, the decree is correct.

2. There was certainly a sufficient delivery of the deed. 77 Ark. 89; 100 Id. 127; 123 Id. 601, and the evidence shows ratification with full knowledge. 55 Ark. 241; 90 S.W. 737.

OPINION

HUMPHREYS, J.

This suit was instituted by appellees against appellants in the Ouachita Chancery Court to enforce a contract executed on the 11th day of December, 1919, between appellant, W. S. Haines, and appellees, for the sale and purchase of certain lands in said county, for and in consideration of the sum of $ 2,000, $ 25 of which sum was paid in cash at the time, the balance to be paid when the deed was executed and delivered. It was alleged that W. S. Haines represented himself, his brother, G. L. Haines, and his sister, Mrs. Grace Tannehill, in the transaction, and, that, pursuant to said contract, the said W. S. Haines, G. L. Haines, Laura Haines, his wife, and Mrs. Grace Tannehill, executed a deed conveying said real estate to the appellees and delivered same to Gaughan & Sifford, a firm of attorneys in Camden, for appellees, upon the payment of the consideration; that said appellees offered to pay the consideration to Gaughan & Sifford, who refused to accept same; that they will return the deed to the grantors unless enjoined from doing so. Appellees tendered the balance of the purchase money into court, prayed for a restraining order against appellants from encumbering or transferring said real estate to others, and for a mandatory injunction against Gaughan & Sifford, commanding them to deliver the deed to appellees, and for all other relief to which they might be entitled.

Gaughan & Sifford filed answer, admitting that the deed was in their possession, having received same through the mail from Roy L. Haines, who resided in Gloster, Mississippi, with instructions not to deliver it until appellees paid them $ 500 for him and until he received his share of the personal property in the estate of his grandmother, Cora J. Haines, deceased; that they would continue to hold the deed subject to the orders of the court.

Appellants interposed the defense that W. S. Haines, in making the alleged contract for the sale of said real estate, was without authority to represent G. L. Haines, his brother, or Mrs. Grace Tannehill, his sister, and that neither, after obtaining full knowledge of the facts of the trade, by act or word ratified said contract; that, before they obtained knowledge of the facts of the trade, they executed the deed in question, but, before same was delivered, they recalled it. Their prayer was for a dismissal of appellees' bill for the want of equity.

The cause was submitted to the court upon the pleadings and evidence, which resulted in a decree commanding Gaughan & Sifford to deliver the deed in question to appellee, upon their payment to the clerk of the court of $ 1,975, the balance of the purchase money, which sum should be equally divided between W. S. Haines, G. L. Haines and Mrs. Grace Tannehill after the administration upon the estate of Cora J. Haines, deceased, with the will annexed, should be closed and all bequests under the will and probated debts against the estate should be paid.

The testimony offered in behalf of appellees was, in substance, to the effect that W. S. Haines, claiming to represent himself and the other heirs of Cora J. Haines, deceased, sold the land in question to appellees for $ 2,000, $ 25 of which sum they paid to him in cash, the balance to be paid when the deed for said lands was delivered; that the following receipt was given by him for the cash payment: "Camden, Arkansas. 12-11-1919. Received of G. S. Rumph and H. B. Lide, $ 25 as part payment on our home place, south part of city of Camden, known as the Joel Haines place, consisting of about 30 acres, more or less, and the consideration of the whole amount is to be $ 2,000 and all taxes for year 1919 to be paid by us, Haines heirs. (Signed) W. S. Haines." That, at the time, it was understood Roy L. Haines owned an interest in the real estate; that, pursuant to the agreement, a deed was executed by appellants and sent to the firm of Gaughan & Sifford in Camden for delivery to them; that, some time after the deed was made, W. S. Haines requested them to take back the $ 25 and call the trade off; that they refused, and Haines then said he was going to call the trade off anyhow and threw the $ 25 down in the office, which was picked up by Joe Terrell, put in an envelope with Mr. Haines' name on it and put in the safe; that they refused to accept the $ 25; that, after appellants refused to carry out the contract, they offered to pay them the balance of the consideration, which they refused; that they also offered to pay the balance of the consideration to Gaughan & Sifford, which was refused; that they did not tender the actual money.

The testimony offered in behalf of appellants was, in substance to the effect that W. S....