Turner v. Todd
Decision Date | 06 January 1908 |
Citation | 107 S.W. 181,85 Ark. 62 |
Parties | TURNER v. TODD |
Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Appeal from Ashley Chancery Court; James C. Norman, Chancellor reversed.
Decree reversed and cause remanded.
Robert E. Craig, for appellants.
To justify the reformation of a deed on the ground of mistake the proof must be clear, convincing and decisive, not only as to the contract actually made, but also as to the mutuality of the mistake, and this proof must establish a preponderance of the evidence. 55 Am. Rep. 577; 71 Ark. 614; 75 Ark. 72.
George W. Norman, for appellee.
The chancery court found that there was a mistake made in the description of the land conveyed by the plaintiff as alleged in his complaint, and ordered that the deed be reformed...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Doniphan, Kensett & Searcy Railroad Co. v. Missouri & North Arkansas Railroad Co.
...unequivocal and decisive, before a reformation will be decreed. 97 Ark. 635; 96 Ark. 230; 91 Ark. 246; Id. 62; 90 Ark. 24; 89 Ark. 309; 85 Ark. 62; 84 Ark. 349; 82 Ark. 226; 81 Ark. Id. 420; 79 Ark. 256; Id. 592. J. Merrick Moore and W. B. Smith, for appellee. 1. The proof that the agreemen......
-
Louis Werner Sawmill Company v. Sessoms
...reasonable controversy. 102 Ark. 326; 83 Ark. 131; 73 Ark. 614; 91 Ark. 162; 79 Ark. 256; Id. 592; 81 Ark. 166; Id. 420; 82 Ark. 226; 85 Ark. 62; 84 Ark. 349; 89 Ark. 309; 90 Ark. 24; 91 246; 94 Ark. 200; 96 Ark. 230; 97 Ark. 635; 98 Ark. 23; 101 Ark. 461; 104 Ark. 475; 105 Ark. 455; 108 Ar......
-
Hearin v. Union Sawmill Co.
...controversy. 14 Ark. 482; 66 Ark. 155; 71 Ark. 614; 72 Ark. 546; 75 Ark. 72; 79 Ark. 256; 81 Ark. 420; Id. 166; 82 Ark. 226; 83 Ark. 131; 85 Ark. 62; Ark. 349; 89 Ark. 390; 90 Ark. 24; 124 S.W. 370. OPINION HART, J. J. F. and J. C. Hearin were in 1905 the owners of a tract of land in Union ......
-
Wilson-Ward Co. v. Farmers' Union Gin Co.
...is not sufficient. 71 Ark. 616; 5 Mason, 577; 72 Ark. 546; 75 Ark. 75; 79 Ark. 256; 81 Ark. 166; Id. 420; 83 Ark. 131; 84 Ark. 349; 85 Ark. 62; Ark. 309. Lamb & Caraway, for appellees. 1. The evidence in this case proves a clear case of fraud and is convincing. 75 Ark. 382; 73 F. 574. 2. Or......