Tatum v. Bolding

• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: MCCULLOCH, C. J.
• Citation: Tatum v. Bolding, 131 S.W. 207, 96 Ark. 98 (Ark. 1910)
• Decision Date: 10 October 1910
• Parties: TATUM v. BOLDING

131 S.W. 207

96 Ark. 98

TATUM v. BOLDING

Supreme Court of Arkansas

October 10, 1910

Appeal from Union Chancery Court; J. M. Barker, Chancellor reversed.

Decree reversed and cause remanded.

Marsh & Flenniken, for appellants.

The testimony does not support the findings of the chancellor. It should be "full, clear and conclusive."

Appellees' possession was merely incidental to their logging contract with Tatum, and was not sufficient to take this case out of the statute of frauds. 31 Ark. 481.

Where one purchases land with his own money, no contemporaneous or subsequent parol declaration of a trust can affect the title. 42 Ark. 503. It is void within the statute of frauds. 42 Ark 481. An express trust in land cannot rest in parol. 67 Ark 526.

J. H Green and J. B. Moore, for appellees.

1. The evidence sustains the decree, and meets the requirements of the law as laid down by this court in 44 Ark. 334.

2. The evidence of appellees' possession and improvements made is clear and convincing, and possession alone, under a verbal contract of sale, will support a suit for specific performance. 44 Ark. 334.

OPINION

MCCULLOCH, C. J.

C. W. Mumford, of Union County, Arkansas, owned a quarter section of timber land in that county, and on October 14, 1902, conveyed it for a consideration of $ 550 to appellant, B. F. Tatum, who was engaged in buying logs for the Bayou Sara Lumber Company, a Louisiana corporation. Tatum sold and conveyed the land to the Ouachita Lumber Company on July 17, 1906, and in November, 1906, appellees, J. O. Bolding and W. W. Bolding, instituted the present action in the chancery court of Union County against Tatum and the Ouachita Lumber Company, and an agent of the latter, alleging that they (appellees) purchased the land from Mumford and caused the conveyance to be made to Tatum upon the latter's oral agreement to advance the purchase price for them and hold the title as security for the loan, which was to be repaid by the delivery of logs at a stipulated price; that they had repaid the purchase price to Tatum by delivery of the logs, and that the latter, in violation of his alleged agreement, had refused to convey the land to them, and had sold it to the Ouachita Lumber Company. Appellants denied that appellees purchased the land, or that Tatum had agreed to convey it to them, and also denied that the Ouachita Lumber Company had any notice of appellee's claim. The chancery court found in favor of appellees, and rendered a decree accordingly, directing the conveyance of the land to them.

Mumford offered the land for sale, and also a wagon and team. Appellees purchased and paid for the wagon and team, which was delivered to them. Tatum paid for the land, and it was conveyed to him by Mumford; but appellees testified that they were the purchasers, and that, being unable to pay for the land and the wagon and team, Tatum had agreed to advance the money for them and hold title to the land as security. This is disputed by Tatum, who testified that he purchased the land for himself and paid for it, in order to get the timber.

Appellees moved on the land in July, 1903, and built two small houses dug a well and fenced a few acres of it. They cut a considerable quantity of timber during two logging seasons, and delivered same to Tatum, who paid them at the rate of five dollars per thousand feet. They claim that, in addition to that, they were to be credited with one dollar per thousand feet on the purchase price of the land. Tatum testified that he authorized them to cut the timber for him, and...