Russell v. May
Decision Date | 11 November 1905 |
Citation | 90 S.W. 617,77 Ark. 89 |
Parties | RUSSELL v. MAY |
Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Appeal from Clark Circuit Court; JOEL D. CONWAY, Judge; affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
J. O A. Bush, for appellant.
Though the recording of a deed is prima facie evidence of its delivery, yet it is not conclusive, and may be overcome by positive evidence that there was, in fact, no delivery. 18 Law. Ed. U. S. S.Ct. 262; Ib. 542; 19 N.J.Eq. 357; 49 N.J.Eq 510; 161 Mass. 381; 105 Mass. 560; 19 Col. 371; 2 Houston (Del.), 246; 185 Ill. 101; 150 Ind. 465; 2 Am. St. Rep. 72; 35 Am. Rep. 166; 7 Ib. 554; 37 Am. Dec. 135; 14 Ib. 369; 63 Ib. 235; 31 Ib. 563; 13 L. R. A. 716; 65 S.W. 973; Tiedeman on Real Prop. § 812.
C. C Hamby, for appellees.
Actual manual delivery is not necessary. The intention of the grantor at the time the deed is executed controls. 21 Wall. (U.S.), 185-6; 2 Iredell's Eq. (N. C.), 360; 1 Devlin on Deeds, § 262, and citations; 2 Jones on Real Prop. § 1276. Delivery is not necessary where the grantee is under disabilities, or is the beneficiary. Tiedeman, Real Prop. § 814; Thornton, Gifts and Advancements, §§ 174, 175; 63 Ark. 374; 25 Ark. 225. The conveyance being for the benefit of grantee, formal acceptance was not necessary; and knowledge by the grantee of its execution, prior to the death of the grantor, is not essential. 51 Ark. 530; 68 P. 607; 1 Devlin on Deeds, § 287, and citations.
John Russell, William Russell, Frank Russell, and Walter G. Russell brought an action against Charlie May, Lula May, John Bell, and Martha Bell, to recover possession of certain lands. They allege that William Russell was the owner of the lands in his lifetime; and that he died intestate on the 31st day of January, 1900, leaving them his only heirs, and Malissa Russell, his widow, him surviving; and that Malissa Russel died sometime in September, 1900.
The defendants answered, and denied that the plaintiffs are the owners of the lands, or entitled to the possession thereof; and alleged that William Russell was the owner of the lands, but that he conveyed the same to his wife, Malissa Russell, on the 27th day of January, 1900, and departed this life on or about the 31st day of January, 1900; and that Malissa Russell died, leaving them, the defendants, her only heirs.
The issues were tried by the court, a jury being waived. The court found for the defendants, and rendered judgment in their favor for the land. No bill of exceptions was filed. The following is a copy of the judgment rendered:
To continue reading
Request your trial- Bray v. Timms
-
Hoggard v. Mitchell
...on part of grantor. 140 Ark. 579; 142 Ark. 311. Delivery of a deed conveying real property is essential to its validity. 24 Ark. 244; 77 Ark. 89; 84 Ark. 610. There must be an intention deliver. 113 Ark. 289. The deed in question was not delivered. See 55 Ark. 633; 98 Ark. 466; 100 Ark. 427......
-
Wood v. Wood
...circumstances attending the execution of this deed to show that there was any present intention to deliver it. 98 Ark. 466; 97 Ark. 283; 77 Ark. 89; 100 Ark. 427; 55 Ark. 633; 13 Cyc. 748; N.E. 198; 36 N.E. 955; 35 N.E. 94. Otis T. Wingo and B. E. Isbell, for appellee. 1. The question of tr......
-
Hardy v. New Rocky Grocery Co.
...520; 46 Ark. 485; 50 Ala. 503; 73 Ark. 49; 89 Ark. 58. Note never delivered to payee and did not become binding on appellant. 84 Ark. 610; 77 Ark. 89. J. HART, J., dissents. OPINION MCCULLOCH, J. Appellant, Mrs. Ida M. Hardy, resides in the city of Little Rock, and she owns a farm, consisti......