Meekins v. Meekins

• Decision Date: 20 April 1925
• Docket Number: 320
• Citation: 271 S.W. 18,168 Ark. 654
• Parties: MEEKINS v. MEEKINS
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

271 S.W. 18

168 Ark. 654

MEEKINS v. MEEKINS

No. 320

Supreme Court of Arkansas

April 20, 1925

Appeal from Union Chancery Court, Second Division; George M. LeCroy Chancellor; affirmed.

Decree affirmed.

Goodwin & Goodwin, for appellant.

OPINION

SMITH, J.

Appellee was the plaintiff below, and, for his cause of action, alleged that on June 15, 1907, Reuben Meekins was the owner of the southwest quarter of the southwest quarter and the south half of the northwest quarter of the southwest quarter of section 33, township 15 south, range 16 west Union County, Arkansas, and, for the consideration of a hundred dollars, sold and agreed to convey these lands to appellee. A deed was prepared, but, by a clerical error in the preparation of the deed, the lands were erroneously described as the southwest quarter of the northwest quarter and the north half of the northwest quarter of the southwest quarter of section 33, township 15 south, range 16 west. Reuben Meekins was dead at the time of the institution of this suit, but was survived by a son, named William, who was the father of appellee, and by a number of other grandchildren besides appellee. These other grandchildren resisted the granting of the relief prayed, and filed an answer in which they denied that any mistake had been made and, in addition, alleged that Reuben Meekins, by reason of his advanced age and feeble health, did not have mental capacity to execute the deed.

The court found that the allegations of the complaint were sustained by the testimony, and decreed accordingly.

Appellants correctly contend that the relief prayed could only be granted upon testimony showing dearly that a mistake had been made, and they insist that the testimony offered in behalf of appellee did not measure up to this requirement of the law.

It appears, from this brief statement of the case, that the question presented by this appeal is one of fact.

On behalf of appellee the testimony was to the following effect: Reuben Meekins and one Charles Goodwin owned, as tenants in common of equal interests, 120 acres of land, consisting of three 40-acre tracts, described as follows: Southwest quarter of the northwest quarter, northwest quarter of the southwest quarter, and southwest quarter of the southwest quarter, section 33, township 15 south, range 16 west. Reuben Meekins and Charles Goodwin divided the land, and, by the terms of the division, Meekins took the south half of the tract and Goodwin the north half. By the terms of this division Meekins took title in severalty to the south half of the northwest quarter of the southwest quarter and southwest quarter of the southwest quarter, which was the south half, and Goodwin took the title to the north half of the northwest quarter of the southwest quarter and southwest quarter of the northwest quarter, which was the north half, and they went into possession of their respective parts, and Meekins remained in possession of the south half until the time of the execution of the deed sought to be reformed.

One of the grounds upon which reversal of the decree below is sought was the refusal of the court to exclude certain testimony given by M. J. Goodwin. This witness testified that he had lived in Union and an adjoining county for sixty-five years that his father had furnished Meekins and...