Johnson v. Williams

Decision Date03 April 1944
Docket Number4-7273
Citation179 S.W.2d 654,207 Ark. 94
PartiesJohnson v. Williams
CourtArkansas Supreme Court

Appeal from Hempstead Chancery Court; A. P. Steel, Chancellor.

Affirmed.

L B. Smead, for appellant.

Graves & Graves, for appellee.

Griffin Smith, Chief Justice. McFaddin, J., not participating.

OPINION

Griffin Smith, Chief Justice.

December 31, 1941, Victor S. Johnson [1] paid Reafus Williams and Mattie Wyatt [2] $ 600 for an oil and gas lease on eighty acres in Hempstead County. [3]

It was stipulated that Cornelius Epps was the owner of 144 acres, of which the 80 acres leased to Johnson were a part. Epps died "between 1890 and 1900." His heirs were named in the agreed statement. John, Frank, Bob, and Miranda (the latter having married Williams) were children of Cornelius. Frank predeceased his father. His children were William, Thomas, and Fannie. Fannie died without descending heirs. Bob died intestate, survived by one child, Sylvester. [4]

As one of the attorneys has expressed it, "for the purpose of this trial" it may be said that following the death of Cornelius, John and Miranda each owned an undivided third interest in 144 acres, while William and Thomas (sons of Frank) each owned an undivided sixth interest. Certain descendants of Cornelius (some of whom were children of John, while other were children of Miranda) will be referred to later.

Following her father's death -- which probably occurred in 1899 -- Miranda and her husband, who had been living on another farm, separated. Miranda moved into the house formerly occupied by Cornelius. When Cornelius died there were two houses on a part of the land designated as the 64-acre tract. Cornelius occupied one of these houses, while John (who died in 1928) lived in the other. Miranda subsequently moved to the 80-acre tract. At the time of trial John's heirs occupied or claimed the 64 acres, and Miranda's heirs occupied or claimed the eighty. Until her death in 1919 Miranda occupied the 80 acres. Albert Williams (son of Miranda) moved away in 1921. He was followed by John Moore, who as tenant occupied the premises for three or four years. Three of Miranda's heirs now live on the 80 acres -- Reafus Williams, Mattie Wyatt, and Lizzie Wyatt.

In 1907 the entire tract left by Cornelius forfeited for taxes. Miranda and John -- in separate accounts -- were indebted to Briant and Company and to Reed and Company. Briant and Company, in the name of S. H. Briant, redeemed in 1911, as evidence by clerk's deed. The 80 acres were sold to L. D. Reed, and Reed in turn made bond for title to Miranda and later conveyed. Briant conveyed the 64 acres to John Epps. There is evidence that John, as to the 64 acres, and Miranda, as to the 80 acres, or their heirs, claimed the properties. The Chancellor found that John and Miranda had agreed upon the division, but recognized that each of Frank's heirs was a sixth owner. Briant's purchase at the tax sale was treated as a redemption. It was further found that at all times subsequent to the death if Miranda and John, their children had acquiesced in the division made by the parents, and that there was an arrangement whereby those who occupied the land should pay taxes, make improvements, and retain the proceeds. This "family settlement," it was held, was binding upon such heirs.

In 1930 Miranda's children [5] mortgaged the 80 acres to Doctors Don Smith and L. M. Lile, who subsequently undertook to foreclose.

In June, 1941, brothers and sisters of Reafus Williams and Mattie Wyatt quitclaimed to them. There is testimony that these parties, as claimants of the 80 acres, sought to delay the proceedings instituted by Smith and Lile. The plan was that if ownership were shown in Reafus and Mattie, who actually occupied the premises, recourse might be had to benefits of the Frazier-Lempke Act. Whether purchasers of the oil lease were charged with knowledge that the prima facie title thus shown in Reafus and Mattie was subject to the outstanding interests of Frank's heirs was a matter as to which testimony was heard.

There were numerous transactions, some unimportant, which it is contended shed light upon conduct and intentions of the plaintiffs below, dating from the time Miranda returned to her father's home. Frank's heirs had been gone forty-two years. It is argued that their acts constituted abandonment, but if actual intent to abandon should not be implied, then they were guilty of laches.

Briefly stated, effect of the decree is that the partition agreed upon by John and Miranda, while...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • Pfaff v. Clements
    • United States
    • Arkansas Supreme Court
    • July 5, 1948
    ...152 S.W.2d 301; Randall v. Kimball, 205 Ark. 970, 172 S.W. 2d 22; Mills v. Alexander, 206 Ark. 754, 177 S.W.2d 406; and Johnson v. Williams, 207 Ark. 94, 179 S.W.2d 654. In these cases there is the common refrain that family settlements are favored, and should be encouraged where no fraud o......
  • Pfaff v. Clements
    • United States
    • Arkansas Supreme Court
    • July 5, 1948
    ... ... There is a vast number of cases in Arkansas which ... have discussed family settlements. [213 Ark. 855] Some of ... them are: Pate v. Johnson, 15 Ark. 275; ... Turner v ... [213 S.W.2d 358] ... Davis, 41 Ark. 270; Mooney v ... Rowland, 64 Ark. 19, 40 S.W. 259; LaCotts ... v ... Kimball, ... 205 Ark. 970, 172 S.W.2d 22; Mills v ... Alexander, 206 Ark. 754, 177 S.W.2d 406; and ... Johnson v. Williams, 207 Ark. 94, 179 ... S.W.2d 654. In these cases there is the common refrain that ... family settlements are favored, and should be encouraged ... ...
  • Johnson v. Williams
    • United States
    • Arkansas Supreme Court
    • April 3, 1944

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT