Norman v. Pugh
| Decision Date | 08 April 1905 |
| Citation | 86 S.W. 833,75 Ark. 52 |
| Parties | NORMAN v. PUGH |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Appeal from Ashley Chancery Court, MARCUS L. HAWKINS, Chancellor.
Affirmed.
Suit by Fannie R. Norman against one Easter, administrator of T. O Rodgers, deceased, and G. B. Pugh and another. From the decree rendered plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.
STATEMENT BY THE COURT.
One T O. Rodgers died in Ashley County, seized and possessed of a house and lot in the town of Hamburg, and Dr. Easter, who claimed to be a creditor of the estate, was appointed administrator, and probated his claim. The probate court upon the petition of the administrator, made an order for the sale of the real estate to pay this claim, there being no personal property of the estate available, and appellant Fannie R. Norman, commenced this suit in chancery to enjoin the sale under the order of the probate court. She alleges that she is the owner of the lot by a conveyance executed to her on November 23, 1900, by one Russell Rodgers, the son and sole heir at law of said T. O. Rodgers, and that the claim asserted against the estate by Easter is fictitious and unjust, and that the allowance thereof by the probate court was fraudulently procured by said Easter. Appellees, Pugh and Butler, appeared, and were made parties to the suit, and were allowed to file an answer and cross-complaint, in which they alleged that they were then the owners of the said claim against the Rodgers estate by assignment from Easter; that the plaintiff had no interest in the lot in controversy because of the fact that said Russell Rodgers had on November 14, 1900, by his deed, duly executed, acknowledged, and recorded, conveyed said lot to one Henry Crook, and that Crook had executed to them a title bond or contract to convey the same to them. It is alleged in the complaint and shown by the proof that the plaintiff was in possession of the property at the commencement of the suit, and remained in possession thereof during the litigation. The court rendered a decree in accordance with the prayer of the cross-complaint, dismissing the complaint for want of equity, cancelling the said deed from Russell Rodgers to plaintiff, and quieting the title in the cross-complainants; and also rendered a decree against plaintiff for the sum of $ 121, amount of rents collected, and awarded possession of the premises to cross-complainants.
Affirmed.
George W. Norman, for appellant.
Robert E. Wiley, for appellees.
OPINION
MCCULLOCH, J., (after stating the facts.)
This appeal presents a question of fact as to whether the deed purporting to have been executed by Russell Rodgers to appellees' grantor, Henry Crook, on ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Walls v. Brundidge
...subject-matter for certain purposes, it will grant complete relief without remitting the parties to an action at law for further relief. 75 Ark. 52; 77 Ark. 570. Where a party has put himself upon the without objection to the jurisdiction of equity, he can not object at the hearing, nor on ......
-
Chicot Lumber Company v. Dardell
...parties, it was its duty to settle all the rights of the parties thereto. Appellees are not remitted to a suit on the bond. 37 Ark. 286; 75 Ark. 52; 77 Ark. OPINION HILL, C. J. The Bliss-Cook Oak Company, successor in title to the Chicot Lumber Company, was the owner of a large body of timb......
-
Federal Union Surety Company v. Flemister
...on depositions, will be reversed if against the weight of the evidence. 71 Ark. 605; 63 Ark. 314; 68 Ark. 134; 72 Ark. 67; 73 Ark. 489; 75 Ark. 52; Id. 72; 77 Ark. Id. 303; 75 Ark. 75; 83 Ark. 343; 85 Ark. 105; 68 Ark. 314; 75 Ark. 9. C. S. Collins and Bradshaw, Rhoton & Helm, for appellee.......
-
Improvement District No. 1 of Clarendon v. St. Louis Southwestern Railway Co.
...fairly be said to have discharged whatever burden rested upon the appellees. 68 Ark. 314; Id. 134; 71 Ark. 605; 73 Ark. 489;67 Ark. 200; 75 Ark. 52; 72 Ark. 67. The insisted upon by appellant that the finding of the city council as set out in the ordinance is correct is not controlling on t......