Lay v. Brown

• Decision Date: 02 December 1912
• Citation: 151 S.W. 1001,106 Ark. 1
• Parties: LAY v. BROWN
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

151 S.W. 1001

106 Ark. 1

LAY v. BROWN

Supreme Court of Arkansas

December 2, 1912

Appeal from Benton Chancery Court; T. H. Humphreys, Chancellor affirmed.

STATEMENT BY THE COURT.

W. E Lynn, a resident of Missouri, died without children, leaving a widow, and, at the time of his death owned certain real estate in Benton County, Arkansas. Clara Lay recovered judgment against his estate for $ 830 and costs. The estate was administered in Missouri, and only a portion of the claim paid. Suit was filed on the judgment in Benton County, and a decree rendered for the balance due and ordering the sale of decedent's undivided interest in the land. Proceeding under the decree, only an undivided one-half interest in the land was sold by the appellant, it being assumed that the widow was entitled to one-half of the lands of her deceased husband, there being no children, and the statute providing that she shall be endowed with one-third of the real estate only, as against creditors, being overlooked.

S. A Robinson, one of the appellees, acquired the interest of Sarah Lynn, the widow, in the lands from her heirs and devisee, and claimed to be the owner of an undivided half of the land at the time of the sale. On the day of the sale under the decree it was claimed that appellant was entitled to subject a two-thirds interest in the land to the payment of her debt, and prior to the sale Clara Lay agreed with the representatives of the owner of the other interest that she would make no further claim against appellee for the one-sixth interest, which she was entitled under the law to have subjected to the payment of her debt, if said Robinson who was present for the purpose of bidding, would not bid at the sale of the land for the payment of her judgment. Appellee Robinson did not bid at the sale, in accordance with the agreement, and the one-half interest sold was purchased by appellant for $ 300. Later appellant brought this suit to subject the one-sixth interest in the lands to sale. The whole property was sold, and $ 169, the value of that interest brought into court and kept subject to appellant's right to recover. The court held that the agreement as made by the parties should be enforced, and that the appellant could not thereafter, in violation of her agreement, recover the money representing the one-sixth interest of said estate. From the decree denying the relief this appeal comes.

Decree affirmed.

Rice & Dickson, for appellant.

Agreements to stifle bidding at a commissioner's sale are against public policy and void. 9 Cyc. 481. Agreements not to bid at judicial execution or other sales are to prevent competition at such sales. 9 Cyc. 491-2-3; 30 Ark. Law Rep. 417; Id. 546. Estoppel does not apply when the agreement is void as against public policy. 16 Cyc. 720; 47 Ark. 351.

W. D. Mauck, for appellee.

The agreement is valid and not contrary to public policy. 25 N.E. 306, 122 N.Y. 144; 23 N. E. (Mass.) 735; 47 Minn. 320; 27 Ark. 407; 42 Ark. 556; 24 Cyc. 28, note 8; 43 Ark. 172; 77 Ark. 31; 9 Cyc. 492, note 82.

The contract being lawful, appellant is equitably estopped to dispute its validity. 63 Ind. 107; 83 N.Y. 14; 66 N.Y. 288.

OPINION

KIRBY, J., (after stating the facts).

It is contended for appellant that no such agreement was made as claimed by appellee, and that if made, it was invalid, being against public policy and without consideration, and not binding against her.

The testimony was sufficient to warrant the finding of the chancellor that appellant agreed to refrain from any further proceeding against the estate of W. E. Lynn and Sarah Lynn, so far as this land was concerned, in consideration that appellee Robinson would refrain from bidding at the sale of the interest in the lands ordered sold for the satisfaction of her judgment against the estate, at which sale Robinson did not bid, and said half interest was purchased by appellant.

There is no testimony tending to show that there was any conspiracy to prevent competition at the public sale of the lands, or to stifle bidding, further than as the agreement on the part of Robinson not to bid would have such effect. Without doubt, he had the right to bid, and, having succeeded to the rights of the heirs or devisees of the widow, Sarah Lynn,...