Outlaw v. Finney

• Decision Date: 28 November 1927
• Docket Number: 1
• Parties: OUTLAW v. FINNEY
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

1 S.W.2d 38

OUTLAW v. FINNEY

175 Ark. 502

No. 1

Supreme Court of Arkansas

November 28, 1927

Appeal from Bradley Chancery Court; E. G. Hammock, Chancellor reversed.

STATEMENT OF FACTS.

On March 3, 1926, Mrs. Ida Outlaw brought this suit in equity against Mrs. F. E. Finney and William Snow, to set aside a deed and mortgage which she had executed to them in a family settlement of her husband's estate.

The plaintiff was a witness for herself. According to her testimony, she married T. R. Snow on the 13th day of November, 1924, in Bradley County, Arkansas, and he died intestate in that county on the 27th day of December, 1924. He left surviving him as his widow, Ida Snow, who subsequently married Cal Outlaw. At the time of their marriage, T. R. Snow resided on a tract of land comprising 4 15/16 acres of land about half a mile west of Warren, Bradley County, Arkansas. At the time of his death T. R. Snow owned this tract of land on which they resided, and also another tract of land in the town of Warren. T. R. Snow bought the 4 15/16-acre tract from John W. Adams on the 14th day of October, 1924, and the consideration in the deed was $ 1,200. Eight hundred dollars of this amount was paid in cash and $ 400 in deferred payments, payable one and two years after date, evidenced by two promissory notes of $ 200 each. Twelve hundred dollars was all the place was worth at the time the family settlement was had between the parties in this lawsuit, in April, 1925. The town property owned by T. R Snow at the time of his death was worth $ 1,900, and there was a balance on a mortgage of $ 1,000 on it from a building and loan association in the sum of $ 800. At the time T. R Snow died he left surviving him his widow, the plaintiff, and a brother and a sister, who are the defendants, as his sole heirs at law. When T. R. Snow married the plaintiff he had a stock of goods, which he told her inventoried about $ 450. He sold this stock of goods at retail on credit, before he died and had collected very little of the purchase money. The plaintiff collected an insurance policy on his life, of which she was the beneficiary, in the sum of $ 1,000, and paid out of it $ 679 on his funeral expenses and family debts. The plaintiff continued to reside at the home place, and, in April, 1925, the defendants came to her and proposed a family settlement of the affairs of her deceased husband. The sister told her that a settlement would be better than a lawsuit. The sister told her that she and her brother would let her have the home place, if she would take it as her part of the estate and assume the mortgage on it, and would convey to them the town property. They agreed to assume the mortgage on it. According to the understanding of the plaintiff, this was to be a full settlement of their rights in the property of her deceased husband. They carried her to a lawyer's office in the town of Warren, and they executed mutual deeds to each other, as she understood it; that is she executed a deed to them to the town property, and they executed a deed to her to the home place. The home place had four little tenant houses on it, which rented for eight dollars per month each. The plaintiff had erected these houses with her own money. In February, 1926, the plaintiff ascertained that she had signed a mortgage on the home place to secure a note of $ 800, payable to the defendants, which purported to have been signed by herself. On February 9, 1926, the plaintiff wrote to the defendant, William Snow, stating that she had just learned of the fraud that had been practiced on her. She first found out about the mortgage purporting to have been signed by her on the home place when she sought to have an abstract made of the property. The $ 800 note was payable on demand, and bore interest at the rate of five per cent. per annum from date until paid. There is also written in the note the following:

"This note is payable $ 20 per month, beginning June 1, 1925, and so payable until principal and interest are paid. Failure to make three monthly payments, or $ 60 in arrears, brings the whole amount due."

Mrs. F E. Finney was not a witness in the case.

According to the testimony of William Snow, he had nothing to do with making the agreement. It was made between his sister and the widow of the deceased. Twenty dollars was paid on the mortgage indebtedness.

The plaintiff denied having paid twenty dollars on the mortgage indebtedness, or that she knew that there was a mortgage on the land until she sought to have an abstract of title made.

The chancellor found that the evidence fails to sustain the allegation of the plaintiff's complaint, and it was decreed that it should be dismissed for want of equity. The case is here on appeal.

Decree reversed and cause remanded.

Wilson & Martin, for appellant.

J. F. Wallace, for appellee.

OPINION

HART, C. J., (after stating the facts).

Counsel for the defendants seeks to uphold the decree under the decision of Martin v. Martin, 98 Ark. 93, 135 S.W. 348, to the effect that family settlements are encouraged, and will not be disturbed unless strong reasons exist to warrant interference on the part of a court of equity. On the other hand, counsel for the plaintiff seeks to reverse the decree upon the authority of Caldcleugh v. Caldcleugh, 158 Ark. 224, 250 S.W. 324, where it was held that, in determining whether undue influence had been exerted upon a person, all the surrounding circumstances which might make the...