Morris v. Ham
| Decision Date | 25 September 1886 |
| Parties | MORRIS, ADM., v. HAM |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
APPEAL from Drew Circuit Court in Chancery, Hon. JOHN M. BRADLEY Circuit Clerk.
Decree reversed and cause remanded.
J. M. & J. G. Taylor for Appellants.
In the absence of fraud, appellee having obtained possession under her deed, and there being no eviction, she cannot controvert the title of the vendor or refuse to pay the purchase price. 16 Ark. 288; 21 Id., 585; 23 Id., 201; 38 Id., 200; 98 U.S 56. She must rely on the covenants in her deed, even though they are worthless, or the vendor insolvent. 50 Mo. 252; Id 511. A vendee in possession cannot refuse payment of purchase money, on suggestion of a defect or failure of title. 22 Ark 435; 2 Johns. Ch., 519. As to the one hundred and sixty acres, it was her duty to perfect her title as cheaply as possible, and she would be entitled to reimbursement for the amount expended. This Prewett tendered her. 12 Peters, 295; 1 Hem., 529; 2 Story Eq., sec., 1219; 23 Ark. 729; 12 How., 24.
Wells & Williamson for Appellee.
The evidence shows that one hundred and sixty acres of the land were the property of the state, and that Prewett had not afterwards acquired title to same, and she had the right to resist payment notwithstanding her possession. As to the fraud, see 30 Ark. 535, and cases cited. As to the one hundred and sixty acres, no limitation could run, nor could eviction be had, hence eviction need not be pleaded or proved. 32 Ark. p. 715; 38 Id., 127; 6 Watts Act. and Def., p. 452; 3 Wash. Real Pr., p., 159, sec. 41; 8 Ark. 368; 17 Id., 228-254.
Thomas E. Prewett sold and conveyed to Mrs. Ham, in the year 1876, seven hundred acres of land, lying in Drew county, Arkansas, for $ 3500. The trade was negotiated by the husband of Mrs. Ham, who paid the consideration in cash, personal property and real estate situated in Tennessee, where the parties all resided, except $ 1400, which was divided into three equal installments, evidenced by promissory notes signed by husband and wife. For the deferred payments a lien was reserved in the deed. The first of these notes was paid. Upon the second, partial payments have been made. The third was indorsed to C. V. Prewett, whose administrator filed this bill against Mrs. Ham, her husband being now dead, to subject the land to its payment. It was alleged to have come to the hands of her intestate for value before maturity.
Mrs. Ham, in her answer and cross-bill, denies this allegation, asserting that the assignment was after the paper had matured and was made as collateral security for a pre-existing debt, no new consideration having passed. And she set up a failure of title to two hundred acres of the land, denying that her vendor was seized at the time of sale, or has since acquired title thereto; and alleging that the state was owner of a part, and one Hill of the remainder, of these two hundred acres. Thomas E. Prewett was made a defendant to the cross-bill, and it was alleged that he, being a near relative and physician of Ham, had imposed upon him by misrepresentations as to the title, character and value of the lands; that Ham, having no opportunity to examine the lands, had relied upon these representations, and that he was, besides, in such feeble health, and his mind so much impaired, as to be incapable of transacting business. And the prayer of the cross-bill was that the two outstanding purchase notes be canceled, and that she have judgment over against Thomas E. Prewett for damages on account of his fraud and deceit practiced in the sale of the land.
These allegations were specifically denied in the answers of the defendants to the cross-bill; and Thomas E. Prewett produced the note still held by him and prayed for foreclosure of his lien also. In a supplemental pleading, which he offered but was not permitted to file, he stated that he had since discovered that the entry of one hundred and sixty acres of the land by the person under whom he claimed, had been afterwards set aside by the general land office at Washington, on account of its conflict with a previous selection by the state as part of the swamp land grant, and that he had immediately applied to the commissioner of state lands to purchase the tract, which would have enured to the benefit of Mrs. Ham; but that she, as the last assignee of the original enterer, and by virtue of her possession and occupancy, which she had obtained through the sale by Prewett, claimed and was awarded a preference right to purchase. He therefore offered to refund to her the amount she had expended in perfecting the title.
The circuit court decreed the cancellation of the two purchase notes, and gave judgment against ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Smith v. Butler
...Law, 283; 50 Ark. 108. Appellee was not entitled to an equitable assignment of the creditor's right. Sand. & H. Dig., § 490; 53 Ark. 523; 47 Ark. 293. The notes of appellant were not subject appellee's claim or any judgment he could obtain. 62 Ark. 398; 65 Ark. 377; 67 Ark. 133; 69 Ark. 123......
-
Newald v. Valley Farming Co.
...the Blanars was not sold to Taylor or Morgan. As to the right to deduct the value of land lost by reason of the conveyance to Terry, see 47 Ark. 293. 3. parties seeking rescission have no rights under the release provision of the mortgage even if they had a right to rescind. 4. The amount o......
-
Broadway v. Sidway
...was no notice and no service. 63 Ark. 323; 79 Id. 289. The decree was regularly rendered, and no good defense was made or is now tendered. 47 Ark. 293; 55 Id. 348; 98 56; 2 Warvelle on Vendors, § 904. It is a collateral attack. 23 Cyc. 1064; 9 Ark. 176; 54 P. 1027; 43 Ark. 238; 49 P. 320; 7......
-
Liddell v. Jones
...could not claim the property as exempt. 42 Mass. 476; 17 N.E. 73; 21 Oh. St. 402; Kirby's Dig. § 4966. A vendor's lien is assignable. 47 Ark. 293; 36 91; 62 Ark. 397; Jones, Mortg. § 565; 122 Mass. 303. J. H. Hill and F. G. Taylor, for appellee. Appellant could not claim the rights of a ven......