Hays v. Goodwin

• Decision Date: 22 December 1924
• Docket Number: 74
• Citation: 266 S.W. 933,167 Ark. 131
• Parties: HAYS v. GOODWIN
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

266 S.W. 933

167 Ark. 131

HAYS v. GOODWIN

No. 74

Supreme Court of Arkansas

December 22, 1924

Appeal from Union Chancery Court, Second Division; George M. LeCroy Chancellor; affirmed.

STATEMENT OF FACTS.

This action was instituted in the circuit court by appellants against appellee to recover the possession of lot 10, in block 3, in the town of Norphlet, in Union County, Arkansas.

Appellee filed an answer, setting up facts which constituted an equitable defense to the action, and on his motion, and without objection on the part of appellants, the case was transferred to the chancery court.

The Methodist Episcopal Church South of Norphlet, Arkansas originally owned the lot in question under a warranty deed from T. M. Stocks. There was a church-house erected on the property, which was subsequently torn down. The church was directly in front of the residence of Francis Goodwin. Some time after the church was torn down, it was decided to build another one. Clay Cook, Bill Hays, and Francis Goodwin were the trustees of the church. Francis Goodwin did not want the church to be rebuilt in front of his residence, because it cut off his view in that direction. He made an agreement with the other trustees to convey the lot in question to him in exchange for another lot in another part of town. Pursuant to this agreement, Francis Goodwin purchased the other lot, and had the title made direct to the trustees of the Methodist Church. The trustees then proceeded with the erection of a new church on it. It was agreed between them that the church conference would arrange for the execution of a deed to Francis Goodwin to the lot in question. Francis Goodwin took possession of the lot, and used it as a place on which to store his wagons and tools, and also rented it annually to such shows as came to the little town and made arrangements with him to use it for that purpose.

After the death of Francis Goodwin, his son, T. C. Goodwin, took possession of the lot in question, and used it in the same way for about eleven years, until just before this suit was brought. No one challenged the right of Francis Goodwin to occupy the lot, and it was generally considered to be owned by him. After his father's death, T. C. Goodwin purchased the interest of the other heirs in said property and received a deed thereto from them. The above facts were testified to by T. C. Goodwin and several other persons.

Some of the witnesses testified that Bill Hays and Clay Cook, the other trustees of the church, told them that they had exchanged the lot in question with Francis Goodwin for another lot which he had purchased and caused to be conveyed directly to the church, and on which the new church was erected.

On the part of appellants it was shown by two of the present trustees of the church, and a member thereof, that the lot in controversy had not been inclosed by a fence, and that they did not know that either Francis Goodwin or T. C. Goodwin was claiming it until just before the present suit was commenced.

The chancellor found the issues in favor of appellees, and it was decreed that the complaint of appellants should be dismissed for want of equity. The case is here on appeal.

Decree affirmed.

Geo. R Haynie, for appellant.

The rightful owner is deemed to be in possession until he is ousted or disseized. Possession follows title in the absence of any actual possession adverse to it. 60 Ark. 163; 43 Ark 469; 73 Ark. 344.

Mahony Yocum & Saye and J. N. Saye, for appellee.

Having accepted the benefit of the contract, the church is now estopped to plead the statute of frauds as a defense. 10 R. C. L. 834, § 138. Equity will never lend its aid to one who invokes it for the purpose of perpetrating a fraud. 52 Ark. 207; Bigelow, Est. 557; 69 Ark. 513; 136 Ark. 237; 128 Ark. 390; 96 U.S. 332; 17 Pick. 213; 2 Wash. Real Prop., *496, § 24. Where one has permitted another to perform acts on the faith of an agreement, he shall not insist that the agreement is barred, and he be entitled to treat those acts as if it had never existed. 52 Ark. 207; 48 Ark. 539. No particular act or series of acts is necessary to demonstrate an intention to claim ownership. 1 R. C. L. 693; 2 C. J. 54; 30 Ark. 640; 147 Ark. 126; 92 Ark. 321. The statute of limitations began to run on the date of the agreement between the trustees and Goodwin. 128 Ark. 390; 115 Ark. 154; 159 Ark. 509.

OPINION

HART J., (after stating the facts).

The evidence clearly shows that Francis Goodwin, in his lifetime exchanged a lot owned by him with the Methodist Church for the lot in...