Varner v. Turner

• Decision Date: 27 May 1907
• Citation: 102 S.W. 1111
• Parties: VARNER v. TURNER.
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

102 S.W. 1111

VARNER v. TURNER.

Supreme Court of Arkansas.

May 27, 1907.

Appeal from Sebastian Chancery Court; J. Virgil Bourland, Chancellor.

Suit by S. D. Turner against L. M. Varner. From a decree in favor of complainant, defendant appeals. Reversed and remanded.

In June, 1882, S. D. Turner, for a valuable consideration, executed a deed to S. M. Turner, Jr., conveying to him the undivided one-fourth interest in certain land in Sebastian county, Ark., that S. D. Turner owned as an heir at law of S. M. Turner, Sr. In July, 1904, S. D. Turner brought this suit in equity against L. M. Varner and others to correct and reform the deed executed by him to S. M. Turner, Jr., alleging that by a mutual mistake of the parties to that deed it was made to include 160 acres of land held at that time by Mrs. Mary Turner as dower in the estate of S. D. Turner, Sr. The defendant appeared and answered the complaint. On the hearing the chancellor found in favor of the plaintiff and rendered a decree reforming the deed. Defendant appealed.

T. B. Pryor, for appellant. Holland & Holland, for appellee.

RIDDICK, J. (after stating the facts).

This is an appeal from a decree reforming a deed executed by the plaintiff nearly a quarter of a century ago. The party to whom this deed was executed died before the suit was brought, and the land is now in the hands of others. After such a long lapse of time, it should require a very strong showing to justify a court in reforming a written instrument of that kind, in which other parties have now acquired rights. "The law wisely holds that there shall come a time when even the wrongful possessor shall have peace; and that it is better that ancient wrongs should go unredressed, than that ancient strife should be renewed." Cunningham v. Brumback, 23 Ark. 338. While it is true that there is some evidence to sustain the finding of the chancellor, it is not, to our minds, so clear and convincing as to justify a reformation of a written instrument on oral testimony after such a lapse of time. The plaintiff, it is true, testified that he had only recently discovered the mistake, but he was contradicted in this by witnesses who said that they talked with him a short time after the deed was executed, and that plaintiff stated to them at that time that the deed conveyed his entire interest in the estate. To entitle a party to reform a deed on the ground of mistake merely, it must be clearly shown that the mistake was common to both par...