Jeffries v. State, for Use of Woodruff County
| Decision Date | 13 February 1950 |
| Docket Number | No. 4-9086,4-9086 |
| Citation | 216 Ark. 657,226 S.W.2d 810 |
| Parties | JEFFRIES v. STATE for Use of WOODRUFF COUNTY. |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
W. J. Dungan, Augusta, for appellant.
J. Ford Smith, Augusta, for appellee.
This is the second appeal in this case. We briefly restate the facts. In 1928 the appellant sold 32 1/2 acres of land to Woodruff County, for $3,250. The deed restricted the use of the property to 'county purposes' and provided that the land would revert to the grantor if its use for county purposes should be abandoned. The county took possession in 1928, but in 1947 the appellant re-entered the property, contending that it was not being used for the specified purposes. The county then brought this suit for possession and for damages resulting from the appellant's having retaken the property. Upon the first appeal we held that the deed conveyed a fee simple upon condition, 212 Ark. 213, 205 S.W.2d 194--a holding that is now the law of the case. We reversed the circuit court's action in sustaining the county's demurrer to the defendant's answer. After remand the defendant obtained a transfer to equity.
At the trial the appellant testified that at first he refused to sell the land to the county, in 1928. He owned other land adjacent to this tract, and his wife did not want strangers farming the property in controversy. Appellant finally agreed to the sale only because he was assured by the county's attorney that the wording of the deed would prevent the county from renting the land for agricultural use. Nevertheless, it is undisputed that the county has almost continuously rented all but two acres of the property for farming. The appellant himself testified that except for a year or two the county has farmed out the land ever since its purchase. His decision to declare a forfeiture in 1947 was due to the action of the county's tenant in permitting cattle to run at large and damage crops on lands owned by appellant.
Thus for more than eighteen years the appellant made no objection to the county's practice of leasing the greater part of the property to farm tenants. During all these years the appellant knew what was being done and thought the terms of the deed were being violated. As he said at the trial, 'I never did think they had any right to farm it.' Even if a breach was proved, which we do not decide, it has been waived. We have uniformly held that a forfeiture for breach of condition is not favored, 'and slight circumstances will often be seized upon to prevent such forfeitures.' Kampman v. Kampman, 98 Ark. 328, 135 S.W. 905, 907; see also Bain v. Parker, 77 Ark. 168, 90 S.W. 1000, and Terry v. Taylor, 143 Ark. 208, 220 S.W. 42. Of course a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sligh v. Plair
...long held that " '. . . slight circumstances will often be seized upon to prevent such forfeiture.' " Jeffries v. State for Use of Woodruff County, 216 Ark. 657, 226 S.W.2d 810 (1950). This Court has further noted Any conduct on the part of the party having the right to declare a forfeiture......
-
Gordon v. Woodruff County
... ... J. Ford Smith, Augusta, for appellee ... GRIFFIN SMITH, Chief Justice ... In 1928 E. E. Jeffries and his wife deeded to Woodruff County--'for county purposes only'--slightly more than 32 acres lying approximately a mile west of McCrory. If ... This is the third controversy involving use of the [217 Ark. 654] land. See Jeffries v. State, use of Woodruff County, 212 Ark. 213, 205 S.W.2d 194; Id., 216 Ark. 657, 226 S.W.2d 810 ... The Quorum Court, in appropriating ... ...
-
Metropolitan Park Dist. of Tacoma v. Rigney's Unknown Heirs
...Hannah v. Culpepper, 213 Ala. 319, 104 So. 751 (1925); Terry v. Taylor, 143 Ark. 208, 220 S.W. 42 (1920); Jeffries v. State, Use of Woodruff County, 216 Ark. 657, 226 S.W.2d 810 (1950); Goodman v. Southern Pac. Co., 143 Cal.App.2d 424, 299 P.2d 321 (1956); Hale v. Elkhorn Coal Corp., 216 Ky......
-
Rhodes v. Westside Free Will Baptist Church, 86-265
...of course, has long held that slight circumstances will often be seized upon to prevent a forfeiture. Jeffries v. State, Use of Woodruff County, 216 Ark. 657, 226 S.W.2d 810 (1950) (wherein the court affirmed the chancellor's decision not to approve a forfeiture when the deed given Woodruff......