Mason v. Graves

• Citation: 265 S.W. 667
• Decision Date: 10 November 1924
• Docket Number: (No. 231.)
• Parties: MASON v. GRAVES et al.
• Court: Supreme Court of Arkansas

265 S.W. 667

MASON v. GRAVES et al.

(No. 231.)

Supreme Court of Arkansas.

November 10, 1924.

Appeal from Ouachita Chancery Court; Geo. M. LeCroy, Chancellor.

Suit by R. K. Mason, guardian, against Luther Graves and others. Decree for defendants, and plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

Arthur D. Chavis, of Pine Bluff, and Richard K. Mason, of Camden, for appellant.

Thos. W. Hardy, Gaughan & Sifford, and Smead & Meek, all of Camden, for appellees.

SMITH, J.

Larkin Murphy owned at the time of his death in 1878 a 160-acre tract of land, which was his homestead. He was survived by his widow and two children, a son and a daughter. The son died unmarried about 1880.

In 1884 the widow filed a petition in the probate court, alleging that the value of the estate of her husband did not exceed $300, and prayed that the same be vested in her. This order was made as prayed, and the widow still resides on a portion of the land.

The daughter, whose name was Drucilla, was only about five years old at the time of the death of her father. She married when she was only 16 years old a man named Newton, by whom she had several children. Newton died about 1910. It is insisted that Drucilla became insane about 25 years ago, and on November 7, 1922, a guardian was appointed for her by the probate court. The guardian then appointed was removed December 1, 1922, and her present guardian appointed.

Prior to the appointment of the first guardian Drucilla had executed a deed and two leases covering portions of this land, and another deed to a right of way over it, and her present guardian brought this suit to cancel these conveyances. It is alleged that the order of the probate court vesting the title to the land in the widow was void, because it was a homestead, and that the deed and leases executed by Drucilla were void on account of her lack of mental capacity to make them.

There were a number of defendants to this suit, and two decrees were entered. Certain of the defendants made settlements whereby they paid designated sums of money to the guardian in consideration of a decree being entered quieting their title. In this decree it is recited that the court made no adjudication concerning Drucilla's sanity, and there has been no appeal from this decree. As to the other defendants the litigation proceeded to a final decree, and there was a general finding in favor of the defendants, and the complaint was dismissed as being without equity, and this appeal is from that decree.

It is insisted that the decree of the court below was based upon the finding that the vesting order made by the probate court was valid and operated to vest the entire title in the widow. We find nothing in the record, however, to support this contention, as the decree appealed from is a general finding in favor of the defendants and dismissing the complaint as being without equity.

Appellees make no attempt to defend the validity of the vesting order of the probate court; in fact, they appear to concede its invalidity, but they do claim title under the conveyances executed by Drucilla. The first conveyance by Drucilla was by a deed executed June 12, 1922, and the leases appear to have been made prior to the adjudication of her...