Hollowoa v. Buck
| Decision Date | 20 June 1927 |
| Docket Number | (No. 91.) |
| Citation | 296 S.W. 74 |
| Parties | HOLLOWOA et al. v. BUCK et al. |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Appeal from Pope Chancery Court; W. E. Atkinson, Chancellor.
Suit by Irene Buck and others against S. W. Hollowoa and others. Decree for plaintiffs, and defendants appeal. Affirmed.
Robert Bailey, of Russellville, for appellants.
Hays, Priddy & Rorex, of Russellville, for appellees.
Appellant S. W. Hollowoa and appellees are the children and heirs at law of W. E. and Betty Hollowoa, who were the owners of 35 acres of land inside the corporate limits on the west side of the city of Russellville. The father had purchased 20 acres thereof from Lawrence Russell, $233 of the purchase price thereof remained unpaid at the time of his death in 1896. The mother owned 15 acres adjoining in her own right and, after the death of her husband, paid off the balance of the purchase price on the 20-acre tract and took title thereto in her own name. Their residence was located on this 20 acres, and the mother continued to live thereon until her death on October 21, 1921. The mother had given three of her children an acre of land each for a home and all the children except appellant had married, he continuing to live with his mother and look after her in her old age. The proof shows appellant to be without education, being unable to read and write, but can sign his name with difficulty. Three days prior to her death, the mother made a will which was not properly attested, in which she gave all her property to appellant, except $1 to each of the appellees, and the request that appellant convey an acre of land to her daughter, Stella Burke, in order to equalize matters among all the appellees. An exact copy of the will is as follows:
This will was probated October 28, 1921. Appellant continued to live on the land from the death of his mother, and in March, 1922, married a wife who was objectionable to some of the appellees. A day or two after his marriage, appellee Irene Buck advised appellant that they were going to contest the will unless he made a settlement with the other heirs. He then went home with Irene Buck, and in the presence of appellee Lizzie Moore and in the hearing of appellee Stella Burke agreed that, in order to avoid litigation, they would make a division of the land, employ a surveyor, and lay off the tracts in substantially equal parcels, he to retain the residence and 7 acres of ground, and each appellee was to pay appellant $60. Pursuant to this agreement, a surveyor was employed, the tracts laid off in which appellant assisted, each appellee took possession of his or her respective tract, appellees Buck and Moore fencing their tracts with the knowledge, consent, and without objection from appellant. They engaged counsel, who prepared deeds, conveying the respective tracts in accordance with the agreement, which were signed by all the heirs except appellant. The final closing up of the matter dragged along until the year had expired in which to appeal from the order probating the will, whereupon appellant refused to carry out the agreement by executing the deeds, and, in December, 1922, tore down the fences, placed thereby his sisters with his knowledge and consent in pursuance of such settlement agreement, and took possession of said lands. Suit was thereafter brought against appellant to enforce this agreement, as a family settlement, for specific performance. The chancery court entered a decree carrying out the settlement, from which comes this appeal.
Appellant insists that, although he entered into the agreement and settlement heretofore set out, it was without consideration and void for the reason there was no valid ground on which to base a contest of his mother's will. In 5 R. C. L. § 6, p. 881, it is said:
"A doubtful or disputed claim, sufficient to constitute a good consideration for an executory contract of compromise, has been defined as one honestly and in good faith asserted,...
To continue reading
Request your trial