Haines v. Rumph, 174

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

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 [228 S.W. 47]

[147 Ark. 427] 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.

[147 Ark. 428] 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...