Jones v. Pond & Decker Mfg. Co.
| Decision Date | 28 May 1906 |
| Citation | 96 S.W. 756 |
| Parties | JONES v. POND & DECKER MFG. CO. |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Suit by Nannie C. Jones and others against the Pond & Decker Manufacturing Company. From a decree dismissing the complaint, Plaintiffs appeal. Reversed and remanded.
The complaint in this case was filed by appellants to review and vacate a decree of the Mississippi chancery court rendered at the March term, 1900, against them divesting their interest in all of section 14, township 10, range 8 W., except 2.57 acres, and quieting the title of appellees thereto. Appellants, except Nannie C. Jones, the widow, were children and heirs at law of B. F. Jones. At the time of the rendition of the decree sought by this suit to be vacated, appellants, except Nannie C. Jones, the widow, were minors. Appellee, in the fall of 1897, filed a complaint in the Mississippi chancery court against one B. F. Jones to quiet title to section 14, township 10, range 8, in Mississippi county, Ark. Jones died, and his widow and children, appellants here, answered. They admitted that appellee had derived title from the state through the Arnold heirs, under whom appellee claimed by deed executed to it in 1897. But they claimed that this title had been divested out of appellee and had been invested in them by a tax deed duly executed to B. F. Jones in 1882. They set up this deed, and also the two and seven year statutes of limitation. They also set up that their ancestor had paid taxes on the land since 1877, and that appellee was barred by laches. The court found that the tax title under which appellants claimed was void, but found that appellants had been in adverse possession under their tax deed of 2.57 acres and quieted the title of appellants to this, but divested their title to the residue of the section, and quieted the title of appellee to same. The court also rendered a decree in favor of appellants for $1,039.80 for taxes and improvements. The tax deed to B. F. Jones was for all of section 14, township 10, range 8. The proof showed that 2.57 acres was cleared by him, and had been in cultivation continuously for seven or eight years before suit was brought by appellee to quiet its title. Appellants seek by their complaint in this case to review and vacate that decree as to all except the 2.57 acres and to quiet their title to the whole of section 14, township 10, range 8, supra. In their complaint after setting up their claim of title under the tax deed to B. F. Jones, and the death of Jones, and their relationship to him as the widow and heirs, and after reciting, among other things, that appellee claims title under a decree of the chancery court of Mississippi county, rendered in March, 1900, in its favor against them, they allege the minority of appellants, the children of Jones at the time of the rendition of the decree, and set up various grounds for annulling same and among them the following: That said B. F. Jones paid all taxes on said land from the date of his purchase until the day of his death; that he took possession of said land in 1884, and continued in the actual, open, notorious, hostile, and exclusive possession of the same, until the day of his death, and after his death the plaintiffs continued said possession until the rendition of said decree in March, 1900; that as an incident, at the rendition of said decree the defendants refunded to the said Nannie C. Jones as administratrix, the taxes paid by her and the said B. F. Jones on said land, which sum the plaintiff Nannie C. Jones now brings into court and tenders the same to defendants. The prayer was that the decree be vacated, and for general relief. Appellee denied all the material allegations of the complaint, and its denial of the paragraph of the complaint above set forth is as follows: Defendants deny that said B. F. Jones, deceased, took possession of said land in the year 1884, or that he held actual, open, hostile exclusive possession of the same up until the time of his death, or that plaintiffs held possession of the same up until his death, or that plaintiffs held possession of the same until the rendition of the decree mentioned in the complaint, but if the said B. F. Jones ever held actual, open, exclusive, and continuous possession of any part of said land for any length of time, his possession covered only 2½ acres, which was held by mistake, and under the belief that it was a part of a tract lying contiguous to the tract in question; and defendants deny that plaintiffs' possession or the possession of their ancestor was ever intended to cover any portion of the land in controversy, and deny that said possession extended to the entire section. This suit was begun January 8, 1903. Appellant Mamie Adkins, née Jones, was born September 10, 1881. Appellant Minnie Jones was born March 17, 1884, and the other children were younger than she. The tax deed under which B. F. Jones claimed was executed Jan. 12, 1880. It conveyed section 14, township 10, range 8. The proof showed that as early as 1884 the timber on the land on the line between sections 13 and 14 was deadened, and in 1889, 3¾ acres were cleared and put in cultivation in section 14 for B. F. Jones. This land joined other land owned by Jones. In 1887, 300 acres were deadened by Jones, and 30 acres were put in cultivation, in January, 1895. Jones paid taxes on the land and used firewood from it continuously from the time he brought it until 1897. No one else was in the actual occupancy of the other land in section 14. The chancery court refused to vacate the decree, and dismissed appellant's complaint.
J. T. Coston, for appellant. L. C. Going, for appellee.
WOOD, J. (after stating the facts).
This action was brought under section 6248, and section 4431, subd. 8, Kirby's Digest. This court has construed these provisions in Blanton v. Rose, 70 Ark. 418, 68 S. W. 674. According to that case appellants, except Mamie Adkins, the children of B. F. Jones, had the right to bring this suit. The decree which they seek to vacate divested their title in the lands and was tantamount to ordering a conveyance from them in favor of appellee. They,...
To continue reading
Request your trial