Reynolds v. Reynolds

• Decision Date: 23 January 1892
• Citation: 18 S.W. 377,55 Ark. 369
• Parties: REYNOLDS v. REYNOLDS
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

18 S.W. 377

55 Ark. 369

REYNOLDS v. REYNOLDS

Supreme Court of Arkansas

January 23, 1892

CROSS-APPEALS from Randolph Circuit Court, JAMES W. BUTLER Judge.

Judgment reversed and cause remanded.

J. C Hawthorne for appellant.

1. Appellee was entitled to the land as a homestead from the date of the marriage of her mother until she was 18 years of age, then the mother or her tenant was entitled to tents until dower was assigned. 34 Ark. 63; 40 id., 393. After dower assigned appellee was entitled to two-thirds of the rents, and the widow to one-third.

2. The agreement should have been admitted. It was a reasonable adjustment of their claims, and there is nothing to show undue influence, nor was there any trust relation between the parties. Mere inadequacy of consideration is not sufficient ground for cancelling a contract. 64 N.Y. 596; 42 id., 362. The real consideration may always be shown by either party. 95 N.Y. 575; 38 id., 263. Where there is any consideration for a contract, its adequacy cannot be questioned at law. 33 Ark. 97; 34 id., 663.

3. The agreement can be upheld on the ground that it was executed to prevent litigation. 1 Pars., Cont., 468: 2 Pa. 531; 43 id., 172. A compromise of a disputed claim will be sustained by the courts. 61 N.Y. 623; 100 N.Y. 226; 78 N.Y. 334.

4. Appellee accepted the $ 65 and cannot retain the consideration and disregard the contract. 86 N.Y. 75; 76 N.Y. 36; 99 N.Y. 611; 11 N.E. 764.

5. Three years rents are all appellee could recover. Mansf. Dig., sec. 2646. There is no exception in favor of infancy. 48 Ark. 184.

P. H. Crenshaw and S. A. D. Eaton for appellee.

1. On the widow's marriage her rights in the homestead ceased. Const. 1868, art. 12, secs. 4 and 5. Plaintiff was a minor until she reached the age of 21. Gould's Dig., ch. 81, sec. 1. The repeal by Mansf. Dig., sec. 3464, could not cut off her right.

2. A minor cannot waive or abandon her homestead rights. 29 Ark. 633; 47 Ark. 449, 456. Her right was superior to dower or quarantine. 54 Ark. 9; 51 id., 335.

3. The agreement was a mere nudum pactum and properly excluded as a flimsy attempt to defeat a minor's homestead right. 25 Ark. 107; 41 id., 309; 38 id., 428.

4. There is no showing that appellant believed himself, in good faith to be the owner, under color of title, and Mansf. Dig., secs. 2644-6 is not applicable. Nor is 48 Ark. 184.

5. Betterments are allowed against a minor's homestead only to the extent they have enhanced the rental value. 37 Ark. 316; 29 id., 633; 47 id., 445.

OPINION

HUGHES, J.

On the 16th day of May, 1890, the appellee brought this action to recover of appellant lands described in her complaint. The appellant admitted that the appellee was the owner of the lands, and stated that the appellee's father died in 1873, leaving him surviving his widow and the appellee; that no dower had been assigned the widow; that she remained in possession of the land until 1880, when she placed appellant in possession; that, on the 30th day of January, 1890, the appellant entered into a contract with the appellee, in which it was agreed that he should use and cultivate the land, and pay a certain part of the rent therefor, and that the appellant paid the appellee sixty-five dollars in satisfaction of back rents. He claimed $ 600 for improvements, sixty-five dollars for taxes, and denied that the appellee had sustained damages by reason of his possession.

The evidence showed that the appellee's father died intestate in 1872, occupying the land in question as a homestead, leaving him surviving his widow, America Reynolds, and the appellee; that the widow afterwards married B. R. Hale, and that in the year 1880 she placed the appellant in possession of the land; that the rents on the land since appellant was placed in possession and the gross receipts of rents by appellant were $ 1160; that appellant had paid taxes on land $ 65 and $ 600 in making necessary repairs and improvements of a permanent nature. The appellant then identified and offered to read in evidence the written agreement referred to in his answer, which the court refused to permit to be read as evidence in the case, to which appellant excepted. The agreement is as follows:

"An article of agreement made and entered into by and between D. W. Reynolds, of the county of Randolph and State of Arkansas, of the first part, and Annie B. Reynolds, of Hood county, Texas, party of the second part, Witnesseth, that whereas the said parties hereto have an interest each in a farm in Cherokee Bay, described as follows: The south half of the northwest quarter of section four, township nineteen north, range three east, and D. W. Reynolds has possession of and all benefits of same, made all improvements and paid all taxes. Now the said Dennis Reynolds agrees that the said Annie B. Reynolds shall have one-half of all rents collected after the taxes and repairs are paid from the first day of January, 1890, until the first day of January, 1899, this contract to be void at the death of Annie B. Reynolds' mother. And the said Annie B. Reynolds agrees to and accepts the above in full of all back rents up to this date.

"Given under our hands and seals on this 30th day of January, 1890.

"D. W. REYNOLDS,

"ANNIE B. REYNOLDS."

"Attest: GEORGE W. SEITZ."

The defendant then offered to prove by his own testimony that he paid the plaintiff $ 65 in satisfaction of the back rents on the land; that he would not have paid the same if the plaintiff had not signed the contract. The court refused to allow the evidence to go to the jury, to which the defendant excepted. The defendant testified that the plaintiff was a female, and was 18 years old 12th of October, 1889.

The court instructed the jury as follows: "The court instructs the jury that the plaintiff is entitled to recover a reasonable rental value for the land in controversy from the time the defendant entered into the possession thereof, less taxes paid by him and the amount expended in all needful repairs and improvements." To the giving of which the defendant saved exceptions.

The defendant filed a motion for a new trial and assigned as errors: The refusing to permit the defendant to read as evidence the agreement entered into between the parties on the 30th of January, 1890, in reference to the rents, etc.; the refusing to permit the defendant to introduce evidence to the effect that about the 31st day of January, 1890, the defendant paid plaintiff $ 65 in satisfaction of back rents due on land in controversy, and the giving of the first instruction. The motion for a new trial was overruled, the defendant saved exceptions and prayed an appeal, which was granted.

The plaintiff also excepted to the giving of said instruction and asked the court to give to the jury the following instruction, which was refused: "The land in controversy being a minor's homestead, the defendant is only entitled to recover on his improvements to the extent that they have enhanced the rental value of the premises." And the plaintiff at the time saved exceptions to the ruling of the court in refusing to give said instruction. Plaintiff also filed a motion for a new trial, and assigned as errors First, the court's allowing evidence of value of improvements made on a minor's homestead; second, the giving of the instruction set out and excepted to by appellee; third, the refusal of the...