Long v. Hoffman

• Decision Date: 20 May 1912
• Citation: 148 S.W. 245
• Parties: LONG et al. v. HOFFMAN et al.
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

Page 245

148 S.W. 245

LONG et al. v. HOFFMAN et al.

Supreme Court of Arkansas.

May 20, 1912.

Appeal from Clay Chancery Court; Edward D. Robertson, Chancellor.

Action by Fannie Long and others against G. A. Hoffman and others. From a judgment for defendants, plaintiffs appeal. Affirmed.

J. S. Jordan and F. G. Taylor, both of Corning, for appellants. J. L. Taylor and G. B. Oliver, both of Corning, for appellees.

McCULLOCH, C. J.

This is an action instituted in the chancery court by the widow and minor children of S. M. Long, deceased, to cancel a sale by the administrator of said decedent to certain real estate, a part of which the plaintiffs allege constituted the homestead of said decedent. Cancellation of the sale is sought principally on the alleged ground that the homestead was included, and also sought cancellation on certain other grounds, which will be stated later. S. M. Long died on December 6, 1906, and was then the owner of a farm about 2½ miles from Corning, Ark., and also owned several lots in the town of Corning, on which was situated a dwelling house and barn. He had owned the farm about 15 years and occupied it as his home, but for several years had occupied, alternately, the house in town during a portion of the year and the dwelling on the farm for the remainder. He usually spent the spring and summer on the farm and the fall and winter in town; that being the season for sending his children to school. He kept some of his furniture at each house. In August, 1905, he rented out all of his farm for the succeeding year, except a small amount of the land, which he expected to cultivate himself in corn, and also rented the dwelling house on the farm to one of the tenants, but reserved a room in it for himself. He returned to the house in town with his family, as usual, in September, 1905, and they continued to reside at the latter place up to the time of his death, which occurred at that place. During the crop season of 1906, he went back and forth between the house in town and the farm, staying at both places a portion of the time; but his family did not return to the farm at all. After his death, the family continued to reside in the house in town, and no steps were taken to have the homestead set aside until this suit was instituted, though Mrs. Long, one of the plaintiffs, claims that she spoke to the county judge about having the farm set apart to her as a homestead, and she testified that she also told the administrator, Mr. Moore, that the farm was the homestead; but the latter testified to the contrary, and stated that when he was proceeding with the sale of the property, for the purpose of paying debts, the widow requested him to sell the farm, rather than the house in town. The testimony shows that the house in town was more commodious and better suited for occupancy by decedent and his family; and that it was better furnished in every way. Mrs. Long testified that they moved to town for the purpose of educating the children, and failed to return during the summer of 1906 for the sole reason that the condition of her health was such that it was inconvenient for them to go to the country. She stated that her husband repeatedly spoke of the farm as his homestead, and expressed his intention of returning there to live, and of building a more suitable dwelling thereon. There were other witnesses, who corroborated her as to statements made by deceased indicating his...