Miller v. Rhea

• Decision Date: 14 March 1927
• Docket Number: (No. 277.)
• Citation: 292 S.W. 128
• Parties: MILLER v. RHEA.
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

Page 128

292 S.W. 128

MILLER v. RHEA.

(No. 277.)

Supreme Court of Arkansas.

March 14, 1927.

Rehearing Denied April 4, 1927.

Appeal from Clay Chancery Court; J. M. Futrell, Chancellor.

Action by I. B. Beck, for whom was substituted C. E. Rhea, special administrator, against Ada Miller. From a decree for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Walter L. Pope, of Pocahontas, for appellant.

Oliver & Oliver, of Corning, for appellee.

MEHAFFY, J.

I. B. Beck, who was the plaintiff in the court below, on December 12, 1923, executed a deed to his daughter, Ada Miller, the consideration named being $1 and the love and affection of the daughter and the care to be taken of him during the balance of his life. The deed also contained a provision to the effect that the title was not to be transferred to Ada Miller until the death of the grantor.

It appears that Ada Miller, for some reason thereafter, decided to have another deed made; stated that some lawyer had told her the deed was not good, and Beck, on the 7th day of June, 1924, made another deed to the same tract of land in substantially the same words, except it omitted the clause providing for taking care of the grantor during the balance of his life. On the 25th day of May, 1925, I. B. Beck filed suit in the Clay chancery court, asking that said deeds be canceled as a cloud upon his title. He alleged that the consideration in both deeds was love and affection and that his daughter should care for him during his life.

The defendant answered admitting the execution of the deeds, alleging that plaintiff made both of them of his own volition and that the deeds were made to defendant without any condition, limitations, or reservations. Defendant admitted that plaintiff lived with her until some time in 1924; denied that she ordered him to leave home and that she refused to perform her part of the contract; and denied that anything to be done on the part of her or her husband was the consideration for the deed.

The plaintiff was 71 years old and the income from the farm described in said deeds was his only means of support. Prior to making the first deed plaintiff had had a paralytic stroke and was in bad health. The undisputed testimony shows that the land described in the deeds was the only property that plaintiff had, income from that property was his only means of support, and that at the time he went to live with his daughter, prior to making the first deed, he was practically helpless. He...