Spaulding v. Haley

• Decision Date: 18 December 1911
• Citation: 142 S.W. 172,101 Ark. 296
• Parties: SPAULDING v. HALEY
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

142 S.W. 172

101 Ark. 296

SPAULDING v. HALEY

Supreme Court of Arkansas

December 18, 1911

Appeal from Randolph Chancery Court; George T. Humphries Chancellor; affirmed.

Decree affirmed.

T. W Campbell, for appellant.

1. The widow is not entitled to homestead in the land conveyed by Towle. C. E. Spaulding held the lands under contract of purchase only. The word "owner" used in the statute, Kirby's Digest, § 3882, means one holding an absolute title in fee simple. 21 Ore. 339; 201 Ill. 292; 30 N.Y. 1040; 112 Ala. 539; 113 Ga. 357; 116 Ga. 942; 106 Cal. 355; 6 Words & Phrases, 5151; 6 Hun (N.Y.) 553; 88 Wis 672; 6 Tex. 303; 25 P. 415; 2 O. Dec. 391.

2. If the widow is entitled to homestead at all, it can not exceed one acre. Art. IX, § 5; Webster's Dict "Village;" Black's Law Dict.; Anderson's Law Dict.; 71 Ill. 569; 35 L. R. A. 396; 74 S.W. 67; 62 Ark. 140.

3. The widow is not entitled to dower in the Towle lands. Our statute, with reference to the kind of estate necessary to be vested in the husband in order to entitle the widow to dower, is simply declaratory of the common law, i. e. that the widow has dower in lands in which her husband was seized of an estate of inheritance. 2 Dembitz on Land Titles, 811; Kirby's Digest, § 2687; 14 Cyc. 910; 132 Ill. 467; 78 Ill. 600; 110 Ky. 841; 122 Mich. 125; 5 Blackf. 406; 49 Mo. 206; 15 Ga. 102; 29 Pa. 71; 64 Ga. 320; 18 Ky. 125; 86 Mass. 187.

Witt & Schoonover, for appellee.

1. Spaulding held an equitable estate in the Towle's lands, an estate that would descend by inheritance, and support a homestead right. Thompson on Homestead, §§ 170, 171, 172; 21 Cyc. 508; 9 Am. & Eng. Enc. of L. (1 ed.) 426; 10 Dec. Dig. 350, § 88; 25 Cent. Dig. c. 2252, § 126; 40 Ark 74. The word "owner" has a broader meaning than that contended for by appellant, and includes in its meaning an equitable as well as a legal owner. Anderson's Law Dict. p. 741.

2. The widow is not limited to one acre for a homestead. The evidence is not sufficient to show that Kingsville is a village or town within the meaning of the homestead laws of the State. 51 Ark. 527.

3. Spaulding's equitable estate being one of inheritance, the widow was entitled to dower. Kirby's Digest, § 2687; 26 Ark. 368; 1 Henning & Munford 91; 1 Jones, N. C., 430; 55 Ark. 225; 5 Am. & Eng. Enc. of L. (1 ed.) 896, note; 31 Ark. 580.

OPINION

MCCULLOCH, C. J.

This case involves a controversy between the widow and the children of C. E. Spaulding, deceased, as to the right of the widow to claim homestead and dower in lands of the deceased husband and father. For several years before his death in the year 1904, C. E. Spaulding owned and occupied as his place of residence one acre of land, described as an acre lying in a square in the southeast corner of the northwest quarter of the northwest quarter of section 18, T. 19, R. 2 W., in Randolph County, Arkansas. This lot, it appears, was in the outskirts of an unincorporated village called Kingsville. Once upon a time this was a country village of some importance, having several hundred inhabitants and a postoffice, numerous stores of different kinds, a blacksmith shop and a church; but at the time of Spaulding's death it had dwindled down to a place where 12 or 13 families resided, and there was a postoffice and only two stores. About a year before his death Spaulding entered into a written contract with one Towle for the purchase of other lands adjoining the above-mentioned lot which constituted his place of residence. The tract so purchased contained 163 acres, described as the south half of the southeast quarter of section 7, and east half of the northwest quarter of section 18, T. 19, R. 2 W., containing 160 acres, and also "lots 5, 8, 12, 13, and north half of lot 18, south of Church Street in the town of Kingsville," and also "a strip or parcel of land lying east of lots 1, 6, and 7 north of Church Street." All of the lands so purchased were used entirely for agricultural purposes, and were situated entirely outside of the village. Spaulding entered into possession of said lands under his contract of purchase from Towle and paid a considerable portion of the purchase price, and died in possession thereof, leaving only a portion of the purchase price unpaid. Afterwards, Spaulding's widow paid the remainder of said purchase price, and Towle executed to the widow and children a deed conveying the lands to them "in such proportions and with such interests to each as by law they are entitled." The widow continued to occupy all the lands until this suit was instituted in the year 1910 by the children of C. E. Spaulding to cancel the conveyance from Towle to the widow and to have an accounting of the rents and profits of the land. The chancery court sustained the widow's claim of homestead, and set apart to her and the minor children 80 acres of the land, including the single acre originally owned by Spaulding, the three acres conveyed by Towle under the description of lot numbers, and 76 acres out of the east half of the northwest quarter of section 18, making 80 acres in all lying together. The court also allotted dower to the widow in the remainder of said lands.

The first question presented is, whether the lands actually occupied by Spaulding constituted an urban or a rural homestead. The Constitution provides that "the homestead in any city, town or village, owned and occupied as a residence, shall consist of not exceeding one acre of land, with the improvements thereon." Constitution of 1874, art. IX, section 5. The homestead right of the widow or children of a deceased resident of the State is a derivative one, and must therefore be the same as that which the husband and father could have claimed in his lifetime. The testimony in the case establishes the fact that Kingsville was a small village, probably within the meaning of the constitutional provision with reference to homesteads. But it also shows that the whole of the property which the court allotted to the widow as a homestead was farm property, and that it jutted into the outskirts of the village. Some of the witnesses testify that it was not a town or village but merely an aggregation of houses occupied by a few families as a part of their several farms under circumstances like unto the facts with reference to the property of Spaulding. The chancellor found that this property was used entirely for agricultural purposes, and that it therefore constituted a rural, and not an urban, homestead. We can not say that this finding is against the preponderance of the testimony. The fact that a small proportion of the property had by the prior owner, Towle, been divided into lots does not necessarily affect the question at issue, for, as has been held by this court, the matter of surveying land into lots and blocks is not necessarily a controlling one in determining the character of the homestead. First Nat. Bank v. Wilson, 62 Ark. 140, 34 S.W. 544. In that case, Judge RIDDICK, speaking for the court, said:

"A case may be supposed where the corporate limits of a town or city have been extended beyond the actual extent of such urban community, so as to include territory altogether rural. On...