Martin v. Conner

• Decision Date: 23 November 1914
• Docket Number: 3
• Citation: Martin v. Conner, 171 S.W. 125, 115 Ark. 359 (Ark. 1914)
• Parties: MARTIN v. CONNER
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

171 S.W. 125

MARTIN v. CONNER

115 Ark. 359

No. 3

Supreme Court of Arkansas

November 23, 1914

Appeal from Randolph Chancery Court; George T. HumphriesChancellor; affirmed.

STATEMENT BY THE COURT.

Appellants brought suit to quiet their title to one hundred and eighty acres of land, the northwest quarter, and twenty acres off of the southwest quarter, section 4, township 20 north, range 1 east, in Randolph County.

These lands were conveyed to James Martin by a patent in 1837.He died in 1862, intestate.

An administrator of his estate procured an order of sale from the probate court for said lands for the payment of debts on the 18th day of January, 1897, and they were duly sold thereunder, and purchased by A. W. and J. N. Martin, for $ 465.

The sale was duly reported and confirmed; a deed ordered and executed, conveying the title to the purchasers.

On the 26th day of December, 1890, said grantees, by their joint deed, conveyed the lands to Mrs. E. C. West, who died intestate, the owner thereof, and leaving her surviving the plaintiffs, her only heirs at law.

It was alleged that there was no one in actual possession of the lands, and that V. E. Conner and the other appellees claimed some interest in the lands adverse to them, the nature of which was unknown, and there was a prayer that the title be quieted.

Certain of the defendants claimed title to portions of the lands by tax deeds, which were declared void.

V. E Conner denied the material allegations of the complaint and alleged that James Martin was her father, and at the time of his death, was occupying 160 acres of the land in controversy, as his homestead, the exact description thereof being unknown to her; and that he left surviving him his widow, who afterward married one Davis West, and several minor children; that the probate sale of the lands to A. W and J. N. Martin was void, and void for the further reason that it occurred more than sixteen years after his death.

She claimed title to an undivided one-fourth interest in the lands by descent, and also by virtue of a tax sale.

The plaintiffs denied the allegations of the cross complaint alleged that E. C. Martin, widow, if she had any homestead right, had abandoned it long before the probate sale, and pleaded the five years' statute of limitations applicable to judicial sales.

It appears from the testimony that the lands had been in the actual possession of no one since the year 1880; that James Martin was the owner thereof, and resided upon part of the lands with his family at the time of his death in 1862, and left surviving him his widow, Ellen C., who afterward married Davis West, and his children, V. E. Conner, A. W., J. N., Robert, J. F. and James Martin, Jr.; that the plaintiffs and defendant, V. E. Conner, are children and only heirs of James Martin, deceased; that his widow, Ellen C. West, died intestate in 1904, leaving the plaintiffs, her only heirs; that V. E. Conner was a step-daughter of said Ellen C. West.

On the chancery court record of Randolph county, there appears recorded a decree rendered in October, 1870, wherein V. E. Conner et al. were plaintiffs, and Ellen C. Martin, as widow of James Martin, deceased, and as administrator of his estate, and the said A. W. and J. N. and James, Jr., were defendants, partitioning among said widow and all the heirs of the said decedent all his land.

This decree also recited there were enough personal assets with which to pay the decedent's debts.

The final decree of partition shows that the lands in controversy were allotted to the widow, Ellen C., as her dower interest in said estate, and nowhere in that proceeding was any claim made or intimation thereof of any homestead interest in the lands by the widow or any of the children.An administrator de bonis non was appointed, who procured an order of the probate court of the county to sell the lands in controversy for the payment of the debts probated against this estate, and they were duly sold and conveyed to A. W. and J. N. Martin, for $ 465, the sale being regularly made, and duly confirmed and deed duly executed; and said A. W. and J. N. Martin in December, 1890, conveyed the lands to Ellen West by warranty deed.At the time of the probate sale two of the children of the decedent, J. F. and James, Jr., were minors, twenty and eighteen years of age, respectively.

V. E. Conner was covert at the time of her father's death, and has ever since remained so.

The widow, Ellen C. Martin, first administered on the estate in 1863, and it was in course of administration till January 15, 1890; and the administrator's settlements show the sale of the lands, the charge against himself for the purchase price thereof and the disbursements upon the probated claims.

The court found that some part of the lands in controversy constituted the homestead of James Martin at the time of his death, the proof not showing what portion thereof; that the lands were regularly sold by the administrator of the estate for the payment of duly probated claims, and the amount received therefor applied to the payment of the debts; that the sale occurred more than sixteen years after decedent's death, and while the widow and two of the minor children were living; that the sale was void for want of jurisdiction in the probate court to make the order; and that the plaintiffs and V. E. Conner were the only heirs of the decedent; and the plaintiffs were entitled to three-fourths of the lands in controversy, and the said V. E. Conner to one-fourth by inheritance; that the tax sales were void, and decreed accordingly; and from this decree the plaintiffs appealed.

Decree affirmed.

S. A. D. Eaton, for appellants.

1.The chancery court had jurisdiction of the lands and the parties, and its decree rendered in 1870, partitioning the lands among the widow and heirs of the deceased, and allotting to the widow the lands in controversy as dower, was valid and binding, not only upon the widow and children, but the appellee as well.33 Ark. 399;39 Ark. 238;49 Ark. 397;76 Ark. 509;77 Ark. 190;30 Cyc. 309, and cases cited.

If the chancery decree was valid, or if it can not be questioned in this collateral proceeding, then the subsequent probate sale was valid, and the title to the lands is in the appellants to the exclusion of the appellee.

2.As to the probate...