McClelland v. McClelland, 4-9512
Decision Date | 02 July 1951 |
Docket Number | No. 4-9512,4-9512 |
Citation | 219 Ark. 255,241 S.W.2d 264 |
Parties | McCLELLAND v. McCLELLAND. |
Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
F. O. Butt, Eureka Springs, for appellant.
J. E. Simpson, Berryville, for appellee.
This is a controversy between two brothers: each has a deed from their father. G. W. McClelland owned in excess of 1,200 acres of land. By various intruments, he conveyed most, if not all, of his lands to the appellant and the appellee; and there is no dispute except as to the two tracts now to be discussed.
Appellant's deed from G. W. McClelland was dated in 1939 and recorded in 1942, and contains this description:
Appellee's deed from G. W. McClelland was dated in 1945 and recorded in 1950, and contains this description: '* * * SW 1/4 Sec. 13 * * * and 10 acres in NE 1/4 NE 1/4 Sec. 23, all in Twp. 21 N.R. 25 W * * *; all subject to mortgage to Federal Land Bank of St. Louis * * * A life estate in said lands is reserved and retained by the grantor * * *'
After the death of G. W. McClelland, Roy McClelland (appellant) filed suit against Elwin McClelland (appellee) praying, inter alia: 'Wherefore plaintiff prays that * * * the aforesaid deed, to defendant dated Sept. 11, 1945, recorded Jan. 14, 1950 * * * be by the court found and declared to be of no force and effect, and that said deed and the record thereof be cancelled as a cloud on the title of plaintiff, and that plaintiff's title to all the lands herein first described and claimed by plaintiff be quieted, established and confirmed against defendant; * * * and for all other necessary and proper and general relief.'
Upon issues joined, the Chancery Court, after a patient and extended hearing, made this finding:
From a decree entered in accordance with the foregoing findings, Roy McClelland has appealed, contending (a) that he showed by evidence exactly what lands his father owned and intended to convey to him in the 1939 deed, and (b) that the Chancery Court should have reformed the descriptions in his said deed.
I. Appellant's Title. The burden was on appellant--out of possession--to recover on the strength of his own title. See Thomason v. Abbott, 217 Ark. 281, 229 S.W.2d 660. But the descriptions in the appellant's deed concerning the two tracts herein involved were insufficient to describe definite lands and were therefore void, and the recording of the deed constituted no notice: see Adams v. Edgerton, 48 Ark. 419, 3 S.W. 628; Neas v. Whitener, 119 Ark. 301, 178 S.W. 390, L.R.A.1916A, 525; Evans v. Russ, 131 Ark. 335, 198 S.W. 518; Bunch v. Crowe, 134 Ark. 241, 203 S.W. 584; and Moore v. Jackson, 164 Ark. 602, 262 S.W. 653. G. W. McClelland retained possession of the lands after making the deed to the appellant. Appellee had no notice, actual or constructive, of appellant's deed and became a bona fide purchaser under his own deed. Therefore appellant was not entitled to reformation against appellee under the authority of the cases just cited.
II. The Appellee's Title. The appellee's deed contained a legal description of the Southwest Quarter of Section 13; and so he needed no reformation to make his deed valid to such tract. When the Court dismissed appellant's claim, appellee's deed remained valid as to the lands in Section 13.
But appellee's deed contained an insufficient...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Caine v. Fist State Bank of Crossett (In re Caine)
...description does not constitute constructive notice if the description does not describe definite land. See McClelland v. McClelland, 219 Ark. 255, 241 S.W.2d 264 (1951) (insufficient description of land in the deed and therefore no notice provided by recorded deed); Gardner v. Johnson, 220......
-
Coulter v. O'Kelly, 5-1026
...of their own title, and not on the weakness of appellees' title. Greer v. Vaughan, 128 Ark. 331, 194 S.W. 232; McClelland v. McClelland, 219 Ark. 255, 241 S.W.2d 264; Gibbs v. Pace, 207 Ark. 199, 179 S.W.2d 690; Sanders v. Baker, 217 Ark. 521, 231 S.W.2d 106; Chavis v. Henry, 205 Ark. 163, ......
-
Lathrop v. Sandlin
...419, 3 S.W. 628; Northern Road Improvement District of Arkansas County v. Zimmerman, 188 Ark. 627, 67 S.W.2d 197; and McClelland v. McClelland, 219 Ark. 255, 241 S.W.2d 264. Appellants' action to have the 1926 deed reformed can not be sustained because this conveyance, insofar as their clai......
-
Stallcup v. Stevens
...to both parties. Hicks v. Rankin, 214 Ark. 77, 214 S.W.2d 490; Tomlinson v. Williams, 210 Ark. 66, 194 S.W.2d 197; McClelland v. McClelland, 219 Ark. 255, 241 S.W.2d 264; Paschal v. Swepston, 120 Ark. 230, 179 S.W. It must be remembered that the line was determined by commissioners and fixe......