Strickland v. Strickland

• Decision Date: 18 March 1912
• Citation: 146 S.W. 501
• Parties: STRICKLAND v. STRICKLAND et al.
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

146 S.W. 501

STRICKLAND v. STRICKLAND et al.

Supreme Court of Arkansas.

March 18, 1912.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Faulkner County; Eugene Lankford, Judge.

Action by G. R. Strickland and others against Matthew Strickland, Jr. From a judgment for plaintiffs, defendant appeals. Reversed and remanded for new trial.

See, also, 95 Ark. 623, 129 S. W. 801.

Appellees instituted an action of ejectment against the appellants to recover the possession of the following described land, situated in Faulkner county, Ark., to wit: S. W. ¼ of section 2, township 6 N., range 11 W. Matthew Strickland, Sr., originally owned this land, and was the father of the appellant and the grandfather of the appellees; he died on March 2, 1908. A deed was introduced in evidence, purporting to convey this land from M. Strickland, Sr., to M. Strickland, Jr. It was dated December 2, 1897. The deed was filed for record in the recorder's office on the 11th day of December, 1900, and, as recorded, the description was the S. W. ¼ of section "12." The deed was offered for record again on October 2, 1909, and was then recorded as the S. W. ¼ of section "2," as it now appears on the face of the deed. It is the contention of the appellees that appellant forged this deed, and that he was in possession of the land for the lifetime of his father by his permission. They introduced testimony to establish that contention. Appellant insists that he did not forge the deed, and that he did not change or alter it in any way after it was delivered to him by his father. He introduced testimony tending to support his claim. Appellant also relied upon the defense of adverse possession for the statutory period of seven years, and introduced testimony to establish that defense. The jury returned a verdict for the appellees, and from the judgment rendered appellant has duly prosecuted an appeal to this court.

Appellant went into the possession of this land in December, 1897, the date of the execution of the deed from his father to him, and has been in possession of it ever since. He introduced testimony, which if true, established his title and right of possession to the land. In rebuttal, appellees introduced testimony of witnesses who testified that after appellant had gone into possession of the land M. Strickland, Sr., told them that the land belonged to him, and that he had simply let his son have it during his lifetime. Counsel for appellant assign as error the action of the court in admitting this testimony.

On this question, T. M. Hogue was the first witness. He testified that in February, 1899, after appellant had gone into possession of the land, M. Strickland, Sr., told him that the land belonged to him, and that he had let his son have it during his (the father's) lifetime. No objection was made and no exceptions saved to the introduction of the testimony of this witness.

W. M. Parrish testified: M. Strickland, Sr., told me that he bought some land which appellant intended to buy, and that the appellant became a little mad about it; that he then told the appellant that he might clear up and cultivate the land in controversy and hold it during his (the old man's) lifetime. This conversation happened about 15 or 16 years ago. Objection was made to this testimony by appellant, and his exceptions to it duly saved.

M. O. Strickland testified: In May, 1907, I discovered from the records in the recorder's office that a deed was on record from M. Strickland, Sr., to the appellant, his son, to the S. W. ¼ of section 12, township 6 N., range 11 W. This land belonged to me, and I went to see M. Strickland, Sr., about perfecting my title to it. M. Strickland, Sr., admitted to me that he did not claim title to this land, but said that he owned the S. W. ¼ of section 2 in the same township and range. That is the land in controversy. He told me that he had never made a deed to his son to it, but had leased it to his son for his (the father's) lifetime. This conversation with my grandfather was had the year before he died. The record shows that this testimony was objected to on the ground that it was not in rebuttal, and for other reasons. Arthur Richardson testified that he was a grandson of M. Strickland, Sr., and that he heard the conversation detailed by M. O. Strickland as having occurred between him and his grandfather.

J. W. & J. W. House, Jr., of Little Rock, for appellant. R. W. Robins and P. H. Prince, of Conway, for appellees.

HART, J. (after...