Ketchum v. Cook
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
| Writing for the Court | ROBINSON; WARD |
| Citation | Ketchum v. Cook, 247 S.W.2d 1002, 220 Ark. 320 (Ark. 1952) |
| Decision Date | 07 April 1952 |
| Docket Number | No. 4-9743,4-9743 |
| Parties | KETCHUM v. COOK et al. |
Ponder & Lingo, Walnut Ridge, for appellant.
Dean R. Lindsey, Batesville, R. W. Tucker, El Dorado, for appellees.
This suit involves the validity of certain deeds wherein Mrs. Maggie Crow is grantor and the appellant herein, Beal Ketchum, an heir of Mrs. Crow, is the grantee. The deeds reserve a life estate in the grantor. Subsequent to the death of Mrs. Crow, the appellees herein, also heirs of Mrs. Crow, filed suit to set aside the deeds alleging they were procured by undue influence, that Mrs. Crow was mentally incapacitated at the time of the execution of the deeds, and that there is not a sufficient description in the deeds to convey title.
Ketchum denies the above mentioned allegations and alleged that the deeds were given for a valuable consideration, and asked that should the descriptions be held to be defective, that the deeds be reformed to meet the intention of the parties. It was the finding of the Chancellor that Mrs. Crow, at the time of her execution of the deeds in question, was possessed of sufficient mental capacity to execute properly the deeds, and that the execution thereof was not the result of fraud or undue influence, but that the descriptions were defective and the deeds therefore void for uncertainty insofar as the lands in Section 17, Township 12 North, Range 4 West, were concerned; and that the conveyances were voluntary and without consideration, and therefore could not be reformed.
Beal Ketchum has appealed from the finding that the conveyances were voluntary and without consideration, and from the finding that the descriptions were not good as to part of the property. Appellees have cross-appealed from the finding that Mrs. Crow had the mental capacity to give a valid deed and that the deeds were not obtained by undue influence.
It would serve no useful purpose to abstract here the evidence on which the Chancellor based the finding that Mrs. Crow had the mental capacity to execute valid deeds, that there was no undue influence used in procuring the deeds, and that both deeds were voluntary conveyances without consideration. Suffice it to say that the evidence sustained the Chancellor on these points.
Since the deeds were voluntary conveyances and without consideration, they cannot be reformed at the instance of the grantee. Smith v. Smith, 80 Ark. 458, 97 S.W. 439; Wells v. Smith, 198 Ark. 476, 129 S.W.2d 251; Nelson v. Hall, 171 Ark. 683, 285 S.W. 386.
The question that necessarily follows is--do the descriptions sufficiently identify the property so as to convey title? On the 1st day of March, 1946, Mrs. Crow executed a deed, naming the appellant Ketchum as grantee, to property described as follows:
'Part of the East half (1/2) of the Northwest quarter (1/4) of Section Seventeen (17) Township Twelve (12) North Range Four (4) west and containing Sixty three (63) acres.
The Chancellor held the conveyance good as to the property in Section 5, but the description void as to the property in Section 17. We do not agree that the description is defective as to the property in Section 17.
On the 4th day of March, 1946, Mrs. Crow executed another deed naming Ketchum as grantee, description of the property being as follows:
'Pt. of the SW 1/4 of the NW 1/4 of sec. 17, Township 12 North, Range 4 West, containing 8 1/2 acres.'
The Chancellor held this description to be void...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial
-
Sutton v. Gardner
...of fact and conclusions of law, analyzing the validity of the legal descriptions in the quitclaim deeds in light of Ketchum v. Cook, 220 Ark. 320, 247 S.W.2d 1002 (1952). Based on its understanding of Ketchum, the court ruled that the quitclaim deed from Nina to Zillah was sufficient color ......
-
Lathrop v. Sandlin
...80 Ark. 458, 97 S.W. 439, Wells v. Smith, 198 Ark. 476, 129 S.W.2d 251, Kaylor v. Lewis, 212 Ark. 785, 208 S.W.2d 185 and Ketchum v. Cook, 220 Ark. 320, 247 S.W.2d 1002. Since appellants cannot reform the 1926 deed to make it an effective conveyance of the homestead, D. A. Ward's deed to Su......
- Menser v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.
-
Barber v. Chesapeake Exploration, LLC
...of all that they owned within a specified section is a sufficient conveyance under Arkansas law. See Ketchum v. Cook, 220 Ark. 320, 323-24, 247 S.W.2d 1002, 1004 (1952) (a deed conveying all of the grantor's real estate within a specified one- half of a quarter section was a sufficient desc......
-
Chapter 21 : Legal Descriptions
...545 (1967); Dierks Forests, Inc. v. Garrett, 242 Ark. 223, 412 S.W.2d 849 (1967); Miller, 235 Ark. 737, 361 S.W.2d 737; Ketchum v. Cook, 220 Ark. 320, 247 S.W.2d 1002 (1952); Price v. Price, 207 Ark. 804, 182 S.W.2d 879 (1944); Walker v. David, 68 Ark. 544, 60 S.W. 418 (1901).[304] Miller, ......
-
CHAPTER 2 THE PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT -- THE SELLER'S VIEW1
...All rights reserved. [2] 270 S.W.2d 708, 711 (Tex. App.--Eastland 1954). [3] 172 S.W.3d 609 (Tex. 2005). [4] See e.g., Ketchum v. Cook, 247 S.W.2d 1002 (Ark. 1952) (upholding a deed referencing "part of" a section when coupled with "It is my intention to convey all of the real estate belong......
-
CHAPTER 4 NEGOTIATING THE PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT: WORKING TOWARDS AN AGREEMENT: RESPONSIVE PRESENTATIONS AND DISCUSSION
...All rights reserved. [2] 270 S.W.2d 708, 711 (Tex. App. - Eastland 1954). [3] 172 S.W.3d 609 (Tex. 2005). [4] See e.g., Ketchum v. Cook, 247 S.W.2d 1002 (Ark. 1952) (upholding a deed referencing "part of" a section when coupled with "It is my intention to convey all of the real estate belon......