Schuman v. Westbrook
Decision Date | 26 June 1944 |
Docket Number | 4-7394 |
Citation | 181 S.W.2d 470,207 Ark. 495 |
Parties | Schuman v. Westbrook |
Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Appeal from Sebastian Chancery Court, Fort Smith District; C. M Wofford, Chancellor.
Affirmed in Part and Reversed in Part.
Hugh M. Bland, for appellant.
L E. Lister, for appellee.
This is a suit by an alleged insane person to redeem her property sold for delinquent taxes; and the redemption is resisted on (1) the denial of insanity, (2) the plea of limitations, and (3) the plea of innocent purchaser. Also there is the question of the time when the redemptor becomes entitled to the rents.
Anna Laurie Westbrook was the owner by will of the property here involved, consisting of two lots and a house thereon in Fort Smith. In 1932, the property was forfeited to the State for the delinquent taxes of 1931. The State received the deed in 1934; and in October, 1937, appellant, Manie Schuman, received a deed from the State upon payment of $ 80.12. In February, 1940, Schuman conveyed the property to Maurice Kaplan by quitclaim deed. From July, 1938, until after the filing of this suit, either Schuman or Kaplan was at all times in actual possession by a tenant.
On September 15, 1941, this suit was filed by Anna Laurie Westbrook, an insane person, acting by her next friend, Lucille Westbrook; and there was: (1) an allegation of the insanity of Anna Laurie Westbrook at all times involved, (2) an allegation of the tender of taxes, and (3) a prayer for redemption and also for an accounting of rents. Both of the appellants (1) denied the insanity of Anna Laurie Westbrook, (2) pleaded adverse possession under § 8925 of Pope's Digest, (3) pleaded three years' adverse possession, and (4) denied plaintiff's right to any rents. In addition, Kaplan pleaded that he was an innocent purchaser of the property for value and without any notice or knowledge of any defect in the title.
The chancery court rendered a decree of redemption in favor of the plaintiff, and found that Schuman had received rents totaling $ 553 and had expended for taxes and improvements a total of $ 451.37. Therefore, in addition to ordering redemption, the chancery court rendered judgment against Schuman for $ 101.63. From that decree comes this appeal, presenting the questions which we now list and discuss:
I. Was Anna Laurie Westbrook Insane?
At the time of the trial in the chancery court, Anna Laurie Westbrook was a woman thirty-two years of age. There had never been any previous inquisition into her mental status. She had never been declared insane and therefore had no guardian. (See § 7543 et seq. of Pope's Digest.) But such an order, if made, would only have been prima facie evidence in a suit like the one here (Eagle v. Petterson, 136 Ark. 72, 206 S.W. 55, 7 A. L. R. 553; Barkheimer v. Lockhart, 139 Ark. 223, 213 S.W. 381). The chancery court had authority to determine mental status in this case irrespective of any previous adjudication by the probate court.
In some jurisdictions there are three types of mental status, being: sanity, incompetency, and insanity (see 28 Am. J. 656 et seq.); but in this State we have only two types of mental status recognized by law, being: sanity and insanity. The question here is whether the plaintiff was sane or insane. Many authorities agree that it is difficult to define insanity, and that it is a social or legal term rather than a medical term. In 32 C. J. 593 it is said:
Our own case of Pulaski County v. Hill, 97 Ark. 450, 134 S.W. 973, is one of our landmarks on this subject; and Mr. Justice Frauenthal's words, as there contained, remain, even after the lapse of years, still the clearest expression on the subject, and directly in point in the case at bar. We quote at length:
To continue reading
Request your trial- Schuman v. Westbrook
-
Koonce v. Woods
... ... The ... right to redeem runs with the land, and any person who would ... otherwise acquire title takes with notice. Schuman ... v. Westbrook, 207 Ark. 495, 181 S.W.2d 470. No ... action of the State or its officials can destroy the ... statutory right of minors, or ... ...
-
Bynes v. Scheve
...two-year redemption period), cert. denied, 370 U.S. 909, 82 S.Ct. 1255, 8 L.Ed.2d 403 (1962). 6. Accord, Schuman v. Westbrook, 207 Ark. 495, 499, 181 S.W.2d 470, 472 (1944); cf. Shenandoah Corp. v. Jackson, supra at 411, 298 F.2d at 325 (court apparently assumed one having need of a conserv......
-
Rinke v. Schuman
...and any person who would otherwise acquire title takes with notice. Koonce v. Woods, 211 Ark. 440, 201 S.W.2d 748; Schuman v. Westbrook, 207 Ark. 495, 181 S.W.2d 470. The right, exercised within the statutory time, is absolute. Schuman v. Westbrook, Under these circumstances, Fred A. Rinke ......