Waits v. Moore

• Decision Date: 18 January 1909
• Citation: 115 S.W. 931
• Parties: WAITS v. MOORE et al.
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

115 S.W. 931

WAITS v. MOORE et al.

Supreme Court of Arkansas.

January 18, 1909.

Appeal from Washington Chancery Court; Thos. H. Humphreys, Chancellor.

Suits by Mary F. Waits against Oscar Moore and others and by complainant against M. I. Flowers and another, consolidated and heard as one. From a decree dismissing the complaints for want of equity, complainant in each case appeals. Reversed and remanded.

Williams & Buchanan, for appellant. McDaniel & Dinsmore, R. J. Wilson, and Walker & Walker, for appellees.

BATTLE, J.

On the 18th day of May, 1906, Mary F. Waits brought suit in the Washington chancery court against Oscar Moore, Melvin Moore, and William Moore, and for cause of action against them alleged in her complaint as follows:

On the 8th day of November, 1872, John D. Moore, the father of plaintiff, and Melvin and William Moore, being the owner of the E. ½ of the N. W. ¼ of section 32, in township 15 N., and in range 32 W., and in Washington county, Ark., conveyed it, except 20 acres, to plaintiff by deed which is of record in the recorder's office of Washington county. At this time plaintiff was an infant of about five years of age. Her father continued to reside on the land until on or about the 16th of June, 1900, when he endeavored to convey it with other lands to M. I. Flowers. Thereafter her father, John D. Moore, bought other lands, known and described as the "Valley Farm" (commonly known as the "Home Place"), upon which he resided until the 26th of September, 1905, when he died testate, devising the Valley farm, of the value of $4,000, to his sons Melvin and William Moore, and bequeathing to plaintiff the sum of $5. During his last illness, he requested his two sons to pay to her the sum of $50 as compensation for her services and attention to him in his last illness.

The defendants, knowing that the lands in section 32 had been conveyed to her by her father, sought to obtain a deed from her to the same in order to protect them against any action Flowers might bring against them to recover damages caused by failure in the title of the lands purchased by him, and did in March, 1906, induce her to execute such deed to one of them, representing and causing her to believe that the land thereby conveyed constituted the "Valley Farm," devised to Melvin and William Moore, and thereby induced her to execute it, when she would not have done so had she known the facts.

She asked that the deed executed by her be set aside.

Oscar, Melvin, and William Moore answered the complaint against them, and denied that John D. Moore ever conveyed to plaintiff the land in section 32, and that she executed a deed for this land to any one of them, but on the 22d day of March, 1906, did, for the consideration of $50, by her deed, grant, bargain, quitclaim, and convey to Melvin and William Moore a tract of land in Washington county, known as the "Valley Farm," which constituted no part of the lands in section 32.

Some time in the year 1906 plaintiff brought an action in the Washington circuit court against M. I. Flowers and P. B. White to recover possession of the E. ½ of the N. W. ¼ of section 32, in township 15 N., and range 32 W. They answered, and denied that plaintiff is the owner of the land. Flowers alleged that he is the owner and in possession of the north half of the tract of land in controversy, and White alleges that he is the owner and in possession of the south half. They pleaded the seven-years statute of limitation.

By way of cross-complaint they allege that John D. Moore on the 16th day of June, 1900, conveyed the land to Flowers, who entered into the possession of the land and paid taxes, and made valuable and lasting improvements on it, and sold and conveyed the south half of it to his codefendant, P. B. White, who entered into possession of such half and paid taxes and made valuable and lasting improvements thereon, and pleaded that plaintiff was estopped by her conduct and barred by laches from maintaining this action, stating the acts of estoppel and laches. They, Flowers and White, asked the court for a decree quieting their title to the lands in controversy as against the plaintiff.

They asked that this action be transferred to equity, and plaintiff's complaint be dismissed for want of equity; and the action was transferred to the Washington chancery court.

Plaintiff replied, and denied the allegations of the cross-complaint.

By consent the two actions were consolidated and heard as one. After hearing the evidence, the court found as...