Seawell v. Young

• Decision Date: 16 December 1905
• Citation: 91 S.W. 544
• Parties: SEAWELL et al. v. YOUNG et al.
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

Page 544

91 S.W. 544

SEAWELL et al. v. YOUNG et al.

Supreme Court of Arkansas.

December 16, 1905.

Appeal from Marion Chancery Court; Elbridge G. Mitchell, Chancellor.

Suit by L. L. Young and others against L. L. Seawell and another. From a decree for plaintiffs, defendants appeal. Affirmed.

This was a suit brought in the Marion circuit court by L. L. Young, Katherine Sowell, Elvira Stockton, Sarah Morris, Allie Childs, George Seawell, William Seawell, and A. C. Seawell, as plaintiffs, against L. L. Seawell and John M. Nowlin, as defendants, for the possession of 6/7 interest in the E. ½ of the E. ½ of the E. ½ of the S. E. ¼ of the S. E. ¼ of section 4, in township 18 N., range 16 W., in Marion county, Ark. L. L. Young, Katherine Sowell, Elvira Stockton, and Sarah Morris each claim an interest in said lands as children and heirs at law of A. E. Seawell, deceased; Allie Childs, George Seawell, and William Seawell, claim one interest, as heirs at law of Frank Seawell, deceased, who was a son, and heir at law, of A. E. Seawell, deceased; and A. C. Seawell claims an interest in said land by conveyance from W. Q. Seawell, who was a son and heir at law of A. E. Seawell, deceased. L. L. Seawell, one of the defendants below, was a son and heir at law of A. E. Seawell, deceased, and he conveyed said above described land to John M. Nowlin, the other defendant below. The said L. L. Seawell claimed to be the owner of the entire tract of land at the time he made said conveyance. The suit was originally brought on the law side of the docket, and was afterwards transferred to the chancery docket on motion of the defendants. From a decree for the plaintiffs below, the defendants have appealed.

The complaint, after deraigning title in L. L. Seawell and A. E. Seawell, alleges that the defendant L. L. Seawell and A. E. Seawell, deceased, each owning an undivided one-half interest, held said lands in common until the 13th day of April, 1896, at which time they made a division of said lands, the defendant L. L. Seawell taking the west half of said tract, and A. E. Seawell taking the east half, and they agreed to make deeds so as to complete the conveyance of said lands; and on the 13th day of April, 1896, the said A. E. Seawell, in accordance with said agreement, made, executed, and delivered to the defendant L. L. Seawell her deed, conveying to him all her right, title, and interest in and to the W. ½ of the E. ½ of the E. ½ of the S. E. ¼ of the S. E.¼ of said section 4, and said deed is duly recorded and a copy of the same is made a part of this complaint and marked "Exhibit G." They further state that the said L. L. Seawell, after receiving the deed from the said A. E. Seawell to the west-half of said tract of land, as above set out, failed and refused to execute a deed to the said A. E. Seawell for the east half of said tract. The complaint then set up the death of A. E. Seawell and alleges that she died seised and posessed of the lands in controversy, and, after naming the heirs, alleges that L. L. Seawell wrongfully took possession of said lands, falsely claiming to be the owner thereof, and after certain other allegations unnecessary to set out the complaint continues as follows: "They further state that the defendant L. L. Seawell, as they are informed and believe here charge, falsely and fraudulently combined with the defendant J. M. Nowlin to defraud these plaintiffs out of their interest in and to the aforesaid lands, as they are informed, and executed his deed to the said John M. Nowlin, purporting to convey all of the above described lands to the said John M. Nowlin, etc. They further state that the said John M. Nowlin had full knowledge of the right, title, and interest of these plaintiffs and those under whom they hold at the time he made said pretended trade with the said L. L. Seawell." After setting up that the heirs were all of age and that there was no administration on the estate of A. E. Seawell, the complaint concluded as follows: "Wherefore plaintiffs pray judgment of this court settling their interest in said estate, for the possession of the same, and for $100 damages for the wrongful withholding of said lands by the defendants, L. L. Seawell and John M. Nowlin, and for judgment for their costs," etc.

The defendants, L. L. Seawell and John M. Nowlin, answered jointly, denying the unlawful possession, and each filed separate answers. Nowlin in his answer denies that he had any knowledge of any equities existing in favor of said plaintiffs against the said L L. Seawell, other than those shown by the records of Marion county, Ark., and denies any complicity in any fraudulent design in attempting to obtain title to said property, if any there were. L. L. Seawell denied any division of the lands between himself and A. E. Seawell, or any agreement to divide same as alleged in the complaint. The answer then continues as follows: "Said L. L. Seawell admits that plaintiffs have set forth in their complaint, filed herein, a full statement of the title, which shows that the record title to said lands to be as follows, to wit: Four and one-half sevenths thereof in the defendant John M. Nowlin, and two and one-half sevenths in plaintiffs. But he avers the facts to be that he and the said A. E. Seawell were tenants in common of said tract of land, by virtue of purchase thereof and deeds thereto, as shown in plaintiffs' complaint; and that while in the actual possession and occupancy of said lands aforesaid, his co-tenant, the said A. E. Seawell, agreed with him, the said L. L. Seawell, that he should erect on said lands a dwelling house and other improvements at his own cost for the use and occupation of the said A. E. Seawell during her lifetime, and that she, the said A. E. Seawell, would convey to him her undivided one-half interest in said tract of land; that in performance of his part of said agreement, and in full compliance therewith, he caused to be erected on the tract of land in controversy a dwelling house and other improvements, at the sole cost and expense of him, the said L. L. Seawell, which costs amounted to the sum of $850, and which house and premises she, the said A. E. Seawell, had the occupation and use of, not only during her lifetime, but that the rents and profits thereof, after her death, were by the consent of the said L. L. Seawell devoted to the paying funeral expenses of the said A. E. Seawell: and further, in 1896, when the said L. L. Seawell had become involved by reason of expenditures in improving the tract of land in controversy in order to provide his mother, the said A. E. Seawell, a comfortable home, and in part compliance with said agreement, the said A. E. Seawell made, executed, and delivered to the said L. L. Seawell a deed to the west half of said 10-acre tract, conveying all her interest in said west half to him, so that he could secure...