Langley v. Reames
| Decision Date | 11 November 1946 |
| Docket Number | 4-7976 |
| Citation | 197 S.W.2d 291,210 Ark. 624 |
| Parties | Langley v. Reames |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Appeal from Union Chancery Court, Second Division; W. A. Speer Chancellor.
Affirmed.
Spencer & Spencer, for appellant.
Surrey E. Gilliam, for appellee.
July 14, 1945, appellee brought this action against his granddaughter, Mary Langley, and George W. Langley, Jr., her husband.
He alleged in his complaint that in early April, 1944, appellants applied to him "for financial assistance in the purchase of a lot and home for defendants (appellants), and induced the plaintiff (appellee) to advance the sum of $ 700 to pay for the house and lot . . .; that the plaintiff did furnish to the defendants for said purpose the sum of $ 700 cash and the defendant used the sum of $ 700 so furnished by the plaintiff to purchase the house and lot . . . on April 6, 1944." The property involved is in the town of Felsenthal, Arkansas.
He further alleged "that it was the intention and understanding between the plaintiff and the defendants that the title in and to said property should remain in the plaintiff until said sum of $ 700 had been repaid, . . . that, in any event, the plaintiff is entitled to have a lien in said sum fixed and declared against said property and to have said lien foreclosed and said property ordered sold to satisfy same."
His prayer was that he have judgment against appellants "and that said judgment be fixed and declared as a lien against the aforesaid property," etc.
Appellants answered with a general denial and endeavored to show that the money which they received from appellee was a gift.
The trial court found that appellants were indebted to appellee in the amount claimed, secured by an oral mortgage, and "awarded judgment for $ 657 against defendants (appellants), together with interest up to date at 6 per cent., and a lien will go against the property if not paid within thirty days," etc.
This appeal followed.
Appellants earnestly argue that the money advanced by appellee to them was a gift and not a loan, was so intended at the time, and that the court erred in holding otherwise.
The essential facts were: Mary Langley was appellee's granddaughter and he was very much attached to her, in fact had practically reared her. About April 1, 1944, appellants came to appellee and requested that he advance $ 700 to them to be used in the purchase of a home which they had selected in the town of Felsenthal, Arkansas. Appellee went with them to the property, and after looking it over, expressed the opinion that it was well worth the money, advanced the $ 700 with which appellants bought the property for their home and they have lived in it since its purchase. The deed dated April 6, 1944, was made to appellants. Shortly after the purchase, appellants paid appellee $ 100 on the money advanced, but made no further payments although requests for payments were made by appellee.
Appellee testified that the money so advanced was a loan and not a gift and that he "didn't have the money to give them or to give anybody," and further that when he advanced the money, he said to appellants: "I am letting you have this money to pay for that place, and I want the place to stand good for the money," and that Mary's husband said: "All right, Pa, we will pay you back every dollar of it."
May 8, 1945, appellee sent a letter to appellants in which he said:
The following day, May 9th, Mary answered this letter, using this language: We...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
M. L. Sigmon Forest Products, Inc. v. Scroggins
...Reamey v. Watt, 240 Ark. 893, 403 S.W.2d 102; Downtowner Corp. v. Commonwealth Sec. Corp., 243 Ark. 122, 419 S.W.2d 126; Langley v. Reames, 210 Ark. 624, 197 S.W.2d 291. This is consistent with the general rule that the appellate court looks to the correctness of the judgment, whatever may ......
-
Downtowner Corp. v. Commonwealth Securities Corp., 5--4257
...stated by the trial court. Notwithstanding that difference in reasoning, we affirm the result of the trial court. Langley v. Reames, 210 Ark. 624, 197 S.W.2d 291 (1946). HARRIS, C.J., not participating. ...
-
Long v. Mabry, 5--5356
...conclusion does not preclude our reviewing the case 'de novo.' Culberhouse v. Hawthorne, 107 Ark. 462, 156 S.W. 421; Langley v. Reames, 210 Ark. 624, 197 S.W.2d 291.' 1. Was there a failure of consideration? It is not contended that any of the appellants made false or fraudulent representat......