Sumpter v. Arkansas National Bank

• Decision Date: 13 April 1901
• Parties: SUMPTER v. ARKANSAS NATIONAL BANK
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

62 S.W. 577

69 Ark. 224

SUMPTER v. ARKANSAS NATIONAL BANK

Supreme Court of Arkansas

April 13, 1901

Appeal from Garland Chancery Court, LELAND LEATHERMAN, Chancellor.

Action by Arkansas National Bank and others against John J. and William Sumpter and others. From a judgment in favor of plaintiff, defendants appeal.

Decree affirmed.

E. W Rector, J. M. Moore and W. B. Smith, for appellants.

The patentees were trustees for appellants. 2 Pom. Eq §§ 981, 1031, 1040. Resulting trusts are provable by parol. Sand. & H. Dig., § 348; 9 Ark. 518; 40 ib 624; 20 Ark. 373. There was no fraud in the transaction, and appellants are not estopped to set up their claim. 109 Mass 54; 12 Allen, 401; 63 Ark. 169; 1 Johns. Ch. 344; 86 N.Y. 221; 14 Cal. 355; 97 Cal. 72; 70 N.W. 115; id. 432; 24 A. 928; 13 Pet. 107; 18 Wall. 255, 271; 93 U.S. 326, 335; 106 U.S. 447; 105 U.S. 100; 11 Ark. 263, 266; 24 Ark. 400; 49 Ark. 63; 35 Ark. 365; 53 Ark. 197, 200; 54 Ark. 499, 508; 59 Ark. 614.

Wood & Henderson, for appellees.

The conveyances by John J. and William Sumpter were fraudulent and void as to creditors. 8 Ark. 470; 23 Ark. 494; 38 Ark. 419; 50 Ark. 42; 52 Ark. 493; 55 Ark. 59; id. 116; 56 Ark. 253; 62 Ark. 26; 73 F. 327; 21 S.W. 847; 31 Ark. 666; 6 Wall. 78; 44 Ark. 310; 46 Ark. 127; 41 Ark. 186; 23 Miss. 75; 9 Sm. & M. 394; 8 N.H. 288; 14 N.H. 61; 6 N.H. 67. The evidence to establish a resulting trust must be full, clear and convincing. 48 Ark. 169; 44 Ark. 365; 45 Ark. 481; 11 Ark. 89. If appellants ever had any rights or equities as the heirs of James Sumpter, they are now estopped from setting them up against appellee. 12 Am. Rep. 124; 46 Miss. 349; 25 Conn. 128; 50 N.Y. 575, 578; 69 N.Y. 113; 17 So. 654; 42 N.E. 223; 17 N.E. 612; 50 Ark. 42; 58 Ark. 27; 62 Ark. 32; 49 Ark. 134; 33 Ark. 458; 66 Ark. 98; 11 Am. & Eng. Enc. Law (2d Ed.), 431; 108 Ind. 419; S. C. 9 N.E. 392; 109 Ind. 457; S. C. 9 N.E. 585; 110 Ind. 552; S. C. 11 N.E. 453; 101 U.S. 572; 92 Pa.St. 390; 82 N.Y. 327; 31 N.Y. 510.

OPINION

BATTLE, J.

This suit was brought by the creditors of John J. and William Sumpter against John J. Sumpter and others to set aside certain conveyances of real estate in the city of Hot Springs, in this state, which before then had been made by John J. and William Sumpter to their mother and sisters and to the wife of John J. Sumpter. They alleged in their complaint that the defendants John J. and William Sumpter were indebted to them and other persons, and that at the time of the creation and making of said indebtedness they were the owners, as tenants in common with Elizabeth Sumpter, of certain lands in the city of Hot Springs, including the said real estate; and that, for the purpose of hindering, delaying and defrauding their creditors, they made certain deeds, by which they undertook to convey to Mary E Sumpter, Sallie E. Gordon and Ella Little the said real estate; that William Sumpter and John J. Sumpter, with like intent, undertook to convey to the defendant, Nannie E. Sumpter, the wife of John J. Sumpter, lot 9, in block 87, a part of said real estate; that plaintiffs had brought actions in the Garland circuit court on their claims, and had caused orders of attachment to be issued and levied on said real estate, by which they claimed liens on the interest of John J. and William Sumpter therein; and that John J. and William Sumpter were insolvent. And plaintiffs asked that the conveyances of said real estate be set aside, that they be decreed to have liens on two thirds of said real estate, and that the same be sold to satisfy the liens.

The defendants, Mary E. Sumpter, Ella Little and Sallie E. Gordon, separately answered, and denied the allegations in the complaint, and alleged that the deeds severally executed to them were not voluntary, "that is, in the sense they were without consideration, but that they were made for these reasons and under these circumstances: That James Sumpter, who died in 1861, the husband of defendant Elizabeth Sumpter and the father of defendants John J. and William Sumpter, Mary E. Sumpter, A. E. Little and Sallie E. Gordon, in 1844 obtained possession of a tract of land on the Hot Springs Reservation in the city of Hot Springs and state of Arkansas embracing besides other lands all of the lots mentioned in said complaint; that the said James Sumpter died in possession of the said tract, and left defendants in possession of it; that said tract was a portion of the four sections of land reserved from sale by an act of Congress of the United States in 1832, and is now a part of the city of Hot Springs; that the government of the United States was the owner of said tract, as well as the balance of said Reservation, and never parted with title thereto until the year 1880; that in 1864, during the war, said defendants were constrained to temporarily leave said tract, but returned in 1865, after the war, and rebuilt their houses and improvements on said tract, the burning of which had necessitated the family's departure from it; that in 1877 William H. and Maria Gaines, under an act of Congress passed in that year, entitled 'An act in relation to the Hot Springs Reservation in Arkansas', filed before the Hot Springs Commission, appointed under the provision of said act, a claim of right to purchase said tract on the theory that James Sumpter had occupied it as their tenant, and thereby sought to deprive said defendants of the benefits of their occupancy of or their improvements upon it; that, on consultation among themselves, and after advice of their attorneys, said defendants agreed that their claim of right to purchase said tract by reason of their occupancy of and improvements on it should be filed before said commission and prosecuted in the name of the defendants Elizabeth, John J. and William Sumpter, for the equal benefit of all of said defendants; that under said agreement all of said defendants Elizabeth Sumpter, John J. Sumpter, William Sumpter, Mary E. (Daniels) Sumpter, A. E. Little and Sallie E. Gordon should share equally in said tract, or such part of it as they might acquire title to under said proceeding, and conveyances were to be made in accordance with this agreement by said defendants Elizabeth, John J. and William Sumpter after title should be acquired; that under said proceedings the defendants Elizabeth, John J. and William Sumpter for their benefit, as well as for said Mary E. Sumpter, Ella Little and Sallie Gordon, acquired title to said lots and to other parts of said tract, and obtained a patent therefor; that the price paid to the United States for said lots was the money of all of said defendants, and that, while title and the patent were obtained in the names of the said Elizabeth, John J. and William Sumpter, as grantees, they took title upon the foregoing terms, and in trust that said deeds were executed to said defendants Mary, Ella and Sallie to sever their interest in said land and to complete the execution of said agreement."

They made their answers cross-complaints.

Nannie E. Sumpter answered, and denied the allegations of the complaint, so far as they affected her, and alleged: "That before the passage of the act for the settlement of the land titles at Hot Springs in March, 1877, George Belding owned and occupied a store house located on that part of said Reservation now known and designated at 'lot 9, block 87 ;' that said Belding was adjudged a bankrupt by the district court of the United States for the Eastern district of Arkansas, and said lot was sold by his assignee in bankruptcy to one William Sumpter, her brother-in-law; that said purchase was made with her money, and for her, but a deed was taken in the name of the said William Sumpter; and that said William Sumpter presented and filed a claim before the Hot Springs Commission in his name and right to purchase said lot; that it was understood at the time that the title to said lot, if acquired, should be conveyed to her; that the right to purchase said lot was awarded by said commission to the said William Sumpter, but that he held it in trust for her, as was agreed and understood; that said William Sumpter on the 6th day of May, 1800, conveyed said lot to her husband, John J. Sumpter, for the expressed consideration of $ 4,000, but that the real consideration was the execution of said trust, and by error said deed was made to her husband, John J. Sumpter, instead of herself; that to cure this error the defendant, John J. Sumpter, on the 20th day of September, 1802, conveyed said lot to defendant Orlando H. Sumpter, who on the same day conveyed it to her, and delivered to her the deed to it; and that no money Was paid or agreed to be paid in consideration of either of the last mentioned deeds." She made her answer a cross-complaint.

The plaintiffs in the action filed answers to the cross-complaints, denying the equitable interests or ownership of the sisters of John J. and Wm. Sumpter, and the wife of John J., and in addition set up as an estoppel against them that they permitted John J. and Wm. Sumpter to procure title to said property in their own names, and to hold themselves out to the public as absolute owners, from the award of the commissioners, in 1878, until the alleged fraudulent conveyances were placed of record in 1806, on the strength of which ownership the said John J. and Wm. Sumpter had obtained credit and incurred the indebtedness with plaintiffs.

Upon the hearing of the evidence adduced, the chancery court found that John J. and William Sumpter were indebted to plaintiffs in divers sums of money; that they conveyed the lands in controversy to their co-defendants; that they were insolvent at the time the conveyances were made; that the conveyances were made for the purpose of...