Lucas v. Meek

• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: ROBINSON
• Citation: Lucas v. Meek, 300 S.W.2d 593, 227 Ark. 677 (Ark. 1957)
• Decision Date: 08 April 1957
• Docket Number: No. 5-1176,5-1176
• Parties: Robert O. LUCAS et ux. et al., Appellants, v. L. Ruth MEEK, Appellee.

Page 593

300 S.W.2d 593

227 Ark. 677

Robert O. LUCAS et ux. et al., Appellants, v. L. Ruth MEEK, Appellee.

No. 5-1176.

Supreme Court of Arkansas.

April 8, 1957.

Rex W. Perkins and E. J. Ball, Fayetteville, for appellants.

Dickson & Puttman and Suzanne C. Lighton, Fayetteville, for appellee.

ROBINSON, Justice.

This case grows out of a contract whereby appellants, Robert O. Lucas, Della M. Lucas and Murray C. Lucas, agreed to purchase, and Mrs. L. Ruth Meek agreed to sell, certain lands in Madison County, Arkansas. The Chancellor rendered a decree in favor of Mrs. Meek, the seller, and the purchasers, the Lucases, have appealed.

The Lucases lived in Kansas and through an advertisement of the United Farm Agency they became interested in purchasing the property involved in this litigation. It appears that the United Farm Agency had described the property as consisting of 447 acres. Mr. George W. Reeves, a local real estate agent in Madison County, was handling the sale of the property, and in taking to the Lucases he explained to them that instead of there being 447 acres there were only 346 acres offered for sale; that this acreage was all he could find that was owned by Mrs. Meek. The Lucases looked at the property and one of them stated that the 346 acres were sufficient to meet their requirements. The parties entered into a contract whereby Mrs. Meek agreed to sell 346 acres for a consideration of $9,500. The Lucases paid $3,000 in cash and agreed to pay $500 a year for two years, and the balance to be paid in four equal annual payments, with 6% interest. The deed and abstract were to be held in escrow at the First National Bank of Huntsville until the purchase price was paid in full. The contract further provides that, should the purchasers fail to make the payments as required when due, they were to forfeit all claims to said property and the monies paid would be considered as rent. As agreed, the $3,000 was paid by the Lucases, a deed was executed by Mrs. Meek warranting good title, and the deed and abstract were deposited with the escrow agent. Later, the Lucases took up with Mr. Reeves, the real estate agent, the proposition that they were to get 447 acres instead of 346, which their contract called for. Mr. Reeves again stated that he could not find where Mrs. Meek had title to more than 346 acres, and if the Lucases were not satisfied with the deal it would be called off and the $3,000 refunded. But Mr. Reeves' offer to refund was not accepted. Later, on February 18, 1954, when the first $500 payment became due, the Lucases paid that amount, plus $390 interest, to the escrow agent; but it was paid on condition that it was not to be turned over to Mrs. Meek until a good abstract of title was furnished to the 101 acres of land not included in the original deed and contract.

The contract of sale was entered into on February 20, 1953, but the Lucases did not obtain the abstract from the escrow agent for examination by an attorney until February 15, 1954. The Lucases contend that they made several efforts to obtain the abstract, but the bank would not turn it over to them to have it examined. On the other hand, Mrs. Edith Nichols, an employee of the bank in charge of the escrow files for 13 or 14 years, testified that she does not recall anybody asking for the abstract until about eleven months after it was placed in escrow. She testified that she would have permitted any lawyer to take it for the purpose of examination or would have let any one of the Lucases take it to a lawyer. The Lucases finally submitted the abstract to an attorney for his examination. The description is very long, requiring almost three pages of the abstract to set it out. Mr. Fowler, the examining attorney, would not approve the title for the principal reason that he stated therewere defects in the description.

Subsequently, Mrs. Meek filed this suit to quiet her title and alleged that the Lucases had breached their contract. Mrs. Meek also asked that the purchasers' rights under the contract be forfeited; but, in the alternative, asked for a judgment for the balance of the purchase price under the contract. The Lucases filed a cross complaint in which they alleged breach of warranty of title, and also alleged false representations in connection with the number of acres of land they purchased, and asked that for these reasons the contract be rescinded and they have judgment for the money they had paid on...