Hill v. Hopkins

• Decision Date: 16 October 1939
• Docket Number: 4-5569
• Citation: 133 S.W.2d 634,198 Ark. 1049
• Parties: HILL v. HOPKINS
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

133 S.W.2d 634

198 Ark. 1049

HILL v. HOPKINS

4-5569

Supreme Court of Arkansas

October 16, 1939

Appeal from Grant Chancery Court; Sam W. Garratt, Chancellor affirmed.

Affirmed.

W. H McClellan, for appellant.

Ernest Briner, for appellee.

OPINION

BAKER, J.

The same subject-matter of this controversy was before this court upon appeal, and was then decided in favor of the appellee. Hill v. Hopkins, 195 Ark. 594, 113 S.W.2d 482. In this first case Mrs. Hill, the wife of the present appellant, was a party and for that reason the rules of res adjudicata are not strictly applicable. Hill filed this suit alleging that he was the owner of this land although the legal title was held in the name of his wife, Mrs. L. G. C. Hill; that he had bought and paid for the land and took title in his wife's name, not intending that she should take actual or real title, but that she should hold only as trustee, and that this arrangement was so understood by both of them. He further alleged that his wife had traded the land to Hopkins for an automobile worth $ 50 and he offered to repay to Hopkins the $ 50, alleged value of the property, with interest, and sought a rescission, alleging that Hopkins had fraudulently represented the automobile and its value, stating that it was a 1931 model, when it was in fact a 1929 model and of much less value than it would have been had it been the model of the year as represented. All the allegations constituting the alleged fraud were denied by the defendant, the appellee here. Upon trial of the case the court dismissed the complaint, and it is from that decree that this appeal is prosecuted.

The main facts are not substantially in dispute. The effect of these facts, or the value of this testimony is considered from widely divergent angles by the parties. There is no controversy about the fact that the appellant here purchased this land, paid for it with his own money; that is to say he borrowed some money and used that at the time of the purchase and in perfecting his title. He perhaps used money that he had received as a pensioner. His first effort toward procuring title to this land was made in buying whatever interest was held by some improvement district. He learned then that it would cost less to redeem the land from a tax forfeiture to the state than it would to buy the original title from the record owner and redeem from the tax forfeiture. To do this he borrowed some money and went with his lender and redeemed the land. All these proceedings were done in the name of his wife, Mrs. L. G. C. Hill.

It is alleged, and some proof was offered tending to show that Hill, by reason of some mental defect, had had a guardian appointed many years ago and finally his last guardian, and who was then still acting, had been appointed by the probate court of Grant county. Several lay witnesses testified that they did not think that Hill was sound mentally, giving such reasons as they had observed. One of the witnesses was a young woman who had lived in the home of Hill and who testified that he was easy to anger and that he acted peculiar. Two witnesses, who had served as nurses or attendants and having some years of experience with those who are mentally afflicted, expressed their opinions that he, Hill, was not mentally capable of transacting business. One other witness, the man who had gone with Hill to help him in redeeming the land, and who advised him to take the title in his wife's name, was the same one who at that time loaned him money to buy, or redeem this property from the state. There is some evidence, indeed, and appellant's admissions are abundant, as argued in his brief, to the effect that he acted much as other men do, clearing up land, contracting with people to do labor, buying property and trading, though there is no evidence that he ever took title to any tract of real estate in his own name. This appears also from evidence offered from former trial. In truth, it appears that he, and those who advised him at the time, were under the impression that because he was living under a guardianship he was incapable of holding title to real property. Practically the only evidence of the alleged fraud in this case is an admission on the part of Hopkins that at the time he bought the automobile that he had traded for the land, he had paid $ 30 for it. He testified, however, that it was worth $ 300. There is evidence that the land in question was worth from $ 300 to $ 500. Hopkins testified that when he traded the automobile for the land he traded with both Mr. and Mrs. Hill. Both of them signed and acknowledged the deed. Hill does not deny that fact, but relies upon the proposition that at that particular time his guardian had not been discharged and therefore, because of the guardianship pending in the probate court of Grant county, the conveyance made by him was illegal and void.

Hopkins pleads that he was an innocent purchaser of this property and did not know of the alleged incompetency of Hill; that the title was in Mrs. L. G. C. Hill, and that he had no knowledge of the alleged fact that she was a trustee. These facts seem to be established by the record in this case. Even though Hopkins had had notice that the land was purchased with Hill's money that would not be notice that a trust was created. The duty of the husband to make suitable provisions for the support and maintenance of his wife raises a legal presumption that the conveyance was a gift, and that she takes as a donee, rather than a trustee. Keith v Wheeler, 105 Ark. 318, 151 S.W. 284; Wood v. Wood, 116...