Reynolds v. Shaver

• Decision Date: 16 June 1894
• Citation: 27 S.W. 78
• Parties: REYNOLDS v. SHAVER et al.
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

27 S.W. 78

REYNOLDS v. SHAVER et al.

Supreme Court of Arkansas.

June 16, 1894.

Appeal from circuit court, Randolph county; John B. McCaleb, Judge.

Action by D. W. Reynolds against Hattie Shaver and others to recover damages for breach of covenants of warranty contained in a deed. From a judgment for defendants, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

The appellant sued the appellees in equity to recover damages of them for breach of covenant in the deed of appellees' ancestor to appellant for lands described in the complaint. The deed is as follows: "James M. Shaver to Dennis Reynolds: Know all men by these presents, that we, James M. Shaver and Caroline Shaver, wife of the said James M. Shaver, have for and in consideration of the sum of one thousand dollars to us in hand paid by Dennis W. Reynolds, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, have granted, bargained, and sold, and by these presents do grant, bargain, and sell, unto Dennis W. Reynolds, all our right, title, claim, and interest in and to the following described land, situated in the state of Arkansas and county of Randolph, bounded and described as follows, to wit: `The south west of the southeast, and the northeast of the southeast, of section thirty-three, township twenty north, range three east, of the fifth principal meridian, containing eighty acres, more or less,' — to have and to hold forever unto the said Dennis W. Reynolds, his heirs and assigns. And we, the said James M. Shaver and Caroline Shaver, do, for ourselves and our heirs and assigns, warrant and defend the same unto the said Dennis W. Reynolds. In testimony of which, we have hereunto set our hands and seals, this 28th of June, 1873. James M. Shaver. [Seal.] Caroline Shaver. [Seal.]" The deed was properly acknowledged and recorded. The appellees answered, denied that their ancestor executed a warranty deed to the appellant, and denied liability on the covenants contained in the foregoing deed, and alleged that the appellant had conveyed the lands to their ancestor by a warranty deed, and was thereby estopped from suing the appellees, and annexed the deed to their answer, which it is not necessary to set out or discuss, as we have not found it necessary to discuss the question of estoppel. The appellant had married the widow of A. G. Kelsey, and became the administrator of his estate. The decedent left a daughter, Hattie, a minor, who married James Jones when she was of the age of 17 years. The land was the homestead of A. G. Kelsey at the time of his death, and was the homestead of Mrs. Kelsey at the time appellant married her, and of Hattie, her minor daughter. Mrs. Kelsey died in 1869. Hattie Jones, née Kelsey, brought ejectment against Reynolds, the appellant, for the lands in controversy, and a judgment was rendered against him for 60 acres of the land and $200 for the detention thereof. The chancellor found in the case at bar that the appellant, as administrator of A. G. Kelsey, had conveyed the land in controversy to the appellees' ancestor, and had afterwards purchased it from him, and that, by reason of his conveyance as administrator, he was estopped from maintaining an action upon the deed of appellees'...