Stuckey v. Lockard

• Decision Date: 13 July 1908
• Parties: STUCKEY et al. v. LOCKARD et al. (two cases). SAME v. STEPHENS et al.
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

112 S.W. 747

STUCKEY et al. v. LOCKARD et al. (two cases).

SAME v. STEPHENS et al.

Supreme Court of Arkansas.

July 13, 1908.

On Rehearing, September 21, 1908.

Appeal from Jackson Chancery Court; Geo. T. Humphries, Chancellor.

Separate suits by Elizabeth Lockard and others against Lynn Turley and others, and by same plaintiffs against George K. Stephens and others. From decrees for plaintiffs in each case, defendants in each case appeal. Decree in first case affirmed, and in second case reversed and remanded.

Separate appeals were taken in these cases, but they have been abstracted and briefed, and considered together. No. 135 is for the recovery by the heirs at law of Adam Bach of lot 3, block 30, Davis' addition to the city of Newport, which had been sold to Geo. K. Stephens as hereinafter explained. No. 143 is for the recovery by the said heirs of lot 2 same block, which had been sold to Lynn Turley.

The appellees' counsel thus state the case: "These suits were brought by the heirs at law of Adam Bach, deceased, to set aside an administratrix's sale of lots 2 and 3, in block 30, of Davis' addition to the city of Newport, in Jackson county, Ark., on the ground that the administratrix purchased the lots at her own sale through her agent, S. M. Stuckey. The complaints alleged that S. M. Stuckey, acting for the administratrix, bid in lot No. 2 for $395, and lot No. 3 for $307.50; that no deed was executed or delivered by the administratrix to Stuckey; that two days after the sale Stuckey conveyed both lots to the administratrix by deeds reciting the exact consideration bid by Stuckey; that Stuckey was a mere conduit for the title from Lalla R. Bach, as administratrix, to her individually; and that no consideration actually passed between the administratrix and Stuckey, nor was any consideration intended to be passed. The answers admit the administratrix's sale; admit that no money was paid by Stuckey to the administratrix; allege that no consideration was paid because Stuckey sold the lots to the administratrix for the exact amount bid by him before the purchase price became due; and allege improvements, and that the administratrix had paid off a mortgage on the lots for which reimbursement was claimed. The answers also allege that Stephens and Turley were innocent purchasers for value without notice. Adam Bach died on the 7th of October, 1899, seised and possessed of a considerable estate, consisting of real and personal property. He left a widow, Lalla R. Bach, an infant child, who soon after died, and several brothers and sisters, who are the plaintiffs in these suits. On the 18th of October, 1899, Lalla R. Bach was appointed and qualified as administratrix of his estate. On the petition of Mrs. Bach, the homestead was set apart to her, and commissioners were appointed to assign her dower. The commissioners reported that the real property belonging to the estate had a total valuation of $10,170; that there was a mortgage on lots 2 and 3, in block 30, Newport, Ark., amounting to $2,413.65; that the net value of the real property, after deducting the mortgage debt, was $7,756.35; and that the value of the dower interest, being one-third of the net value of the real property, was $2,585.45. The commissioners further reported that the value of lots 2 and 3, in block 30, was $5,000; that the incumbrances on them was $2,413.65; and that the net value of the lots was $2,586.35. As the estimated value of the dower interest was $2,585.45, and the net value of lots 2 and 3 was $2,586.35, the commissioners set aside lots 2 and 3 to the widow for her dower, subject, of course, to the incumbrance which she would have to discharge. * * * Subsequently the administratrix filed a petition in the probate court, praying for an order to sell the real property belonging to the estate for the payment of debts. The petition described the real property, and included the reversionary interest in lots 2 and 3, in block 30, in which a life estate had been vested in the widow as her dower. * * * On the 8th day of May, 1901, the court granted the petition, and made an order of sale. This order describes specifically each piece of real property, and the lots in controversy were described as `the reversionary interest in lots two and three in block thirty in Davis' addition to the city of Newport.' On the 22d day of October, 1901, the administratrix filed a report of the sale, reciting, among other sales, as follows: `The reversionary interest in lot 2, block 30, Davis' addition, Newport, to S. M. Stuckey, $395.00; the reversionary interest in lot 3, block 30, Davis' addition to the city of Newport, to S. M. Stuckey, for $307.50.' On the same day, October 22, 1901, the sale was approved and confirmed. On the same day the administratrix signed and acknowledged a deed from herself as administratrix to S. M. Stuckey, purporting to convey to him the reversionary interest in lot No. 2 for $395 and the reversionary interest in lot No. 3 for $307.50. While this deed bears date the 22d of October, 1901, it was not filed for record until August 24, 1905, and the proof shows that the deed was never, in fact, delivered to S. M. Stuckey. It was filed for record long after the death of Lalla R. Bach, the administratrix. On the 24th day of October, 1901, S. M. Stuckey conveyed to Lalla R. Bach lots 2 and 3 by a deed which recites a consideration of $702.50. This is the sum of $395 bid by Stuckey for lot No. 2, and $307.50 bid by Stuckey for lot No. 3. Lalla R. Bach afterwards intermarried with W. L. McGee. Upon her death she devised all of her property, including lots 2 and 3, to W. L. McGee. On the 1st of September, 1905, McGee conveyed lot No. 3 to George K. Stephens, who is the defendant in case No. 135, for $2,200. The deed recites that $500 was paid in cash, and that the balance of $1,700 was evidenced by a note due November 1, 1906. On the 7th day of September, 1905, McGee conveyed lot No. 2 to Lynn Turley, the defendant in case No. 143, for $2,300. The deed recites that $500 was paid in cash, and that the balance of $1,800 was evidenced by a note due November 1, 1906. Each deed retained a lien for the unpaid purchase money. The complaint alleges that the administratrix, acting through her agent, S. M. Stuckey, purchased the two lots in controversy at the administratrix's sale. It is admitted that Stuckey bid in the lots, and that he afterwards conveyed them to Mrs. Bach. It is also admitted that Stuckey paid nothing on his bid. He attempts to explain this by saying that he sold to Mrs. Bach at the same price at which he purchased and before his purchase money became due."

For the purposes of the decision it is not material to review the evidence. The findings of the court will be accepted as correct. In the Stephens Case the court found "that within a short time after said sale the said S. M. Stuckey entered into a contract to sell and convey the said reversionary interest so purchased by him to the administratrix, Lalla R. Bach, which contract was made before the confirmation of said sale, on the 22d day of October, 1901; that said contract was carried out by the execution of a deed from the said S. M. Stuckey to the said Lalla R. Bach on the 24th day of October, 1901, conveying said reversionary interest to her; that the legal effect of said contract was to render the said administratrix a purchaser of said...