Maxwell v. Maxwell
Decision Date | 27 March 1911 |
Parties | MAXWELL v. MAXWELL |
Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Appeal from Independence Chancery Court; G. T. Humphries Chancellor; affirmed.
STATEMENT BY THE COURT.
This action was instituted by appellee against appellant to cancel a deed to certain lots in Charleston's Addition to the town of Batesville. Appellant was the son of appellee. She set forth certain facts which she alleged constituted fraud deceit, misrepresentation and undue influence on the part of appellant by which she was induced to sign the deed. The appellee further alleged that the deed was never "in fact delivered" to appellant; "that she left it with the notary to be delivered to Chas. E. Maxwell, for him to bring home to her, but that he had the same recorded, * * * that defendant's action in getting possession of this deed and having it recorded casts a cloud on her title." She set forth the deed, which recited that for the consideration of $ 100 she conveyed to appellant and unto his heirs and assigns forever certain lots which are described. The deed contained the following clause:
"This sale is on condition that I shall have and retain possession and control, as well as the exclusive use and enjoyment of the said premises during the remainder of my natural lifetime, and at my death the same shall go to and become the property of the said Chas. E. Maxwell, his heirs or assigns but not before; it being my intention and purpose to reserve to myself a life estate in said lands."
The appellant denied all the allegations of the complaint. The testimony of appellee, concerning the delivery of the deed is as follows:
That she went alone to the office of Chas. F. Cole, the notary before whom the deed in controversy was executed and acknowledged, on both occasions of her visit there.
The testimony of appellant in regard to the execution and delivery of the deed is as follows:
C. F. Cole testified as follows:
The court found that the deed was without adequate consideration and that it was executed by reason of false representations made to the plaintiff by the defendant, and by reason of undue...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Bray v. Timms
...was void, and conveyed no interest in the Garrett Royalty. 14 Ark. 286; 24 Ark. 244; 74 Ark. 104; 77 Ark. 89; 80 Ark. 8; 97 Ark. 283; 98 Ark. 466; 100 Ark. 123 Ark. 601; 132 Ark. 438; 140 Ark. 579; 142 Ark. 311. 4. The appellant cannot, on appeal, raise issues or defenses or present theorie......
-
Hoggard v. Mitchell
...77 Ark. 89; 84 Ark. 610. There must be an intention to deliver. 113 Ark. 289. The deed in question was not delivered. See 55 Ark. 633; 98 Ark. 466; 100 Ark. 427; Ark. 142; 126 Ark. 182. A deed which is void in part because of fraud will be void as to the whole. 13 Cyc. 581. The deed should ......
-
Wood v. Wood
...and there is nothing in the circumstances attending the execution of this deed to show that there was any present intention to deliver it. 98 Ark. 466; 97 283; 77 Ark. 89; 100 Ark. 427; 55 Ark. 633; 13 Cyc. 748; 50 N.E. 198; 36 N.E. 955; 35 N.E. 94. Otis T. Wingo and B. E. Isbell, for appel......
-
McCord v. Robinson, 5-693
... ... Russell v. May, 77 Ark. 89, 90 S.W. 617; Maxwell v. Maxwell, 98 Ark. 466, 136 S.W. 172; Battle v. Anders, 100 Ark. 427, 140 S.W. 593, 595; Stephens v. Stephens, 108 Ark. 53, 156 S.W. 837; Faulkner ... ...