White v. White

• Decision Date: 12 October 1889
• Citation: 12 S.W. 201,52 Ark. 188
• Parties: WHITE v. WHITE
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

12 S.W. 201

52 Ark. 188

WHITE v. WHITE

Supreme Court of Arkansas

October 12, 1889

APPEAL from Washington Circuit Court in Chancery, J. M. PITTMAN Judge.

William J. White brought an action of ejectment against his father J. S. White, to recover a tract of land, claiming title thereto under a conveyance executed to him in the year 1874 by E. D. Ham. The defendant interposed the statute of limitations as a bar to the action, and set up as a further defense that he paid all the purchase money for the land and that the conveyance to the plaintiff was in trust for his benefit. His answer was made a cross-complaint, by which he prayed for a decree divesting the plaintiff of title to the land and vesting it in himself. The cause Was transferred to the equity docket. The answer to the cross-complaint admitted that the defendant purchased the land from Ham and paid the purchase money therefor, but denied that the conveyance was intended to create a trust, and alleged that it was made as an advancement from the defendant to the plaintiff. On the hearing the court below found that the defendant had held adverse possession of part of the land for seven years next before the suit was commenced and as to that part, decreed in his favor. For the recovery of the residue judgment was rendered for the appellant. The evidence showed that at the date of the conveyance W. J. White was a minor living with his father, and that after he became of age, and until his marriage in 1881, he continued to reside with his father as a member of the latter's family. He remained on the defendant's farm a year after his marriage, and during that year they were partners in cultivating the defendant's lands and also such part of the land purchased from Ham as had been reduced to a state of cultivation. The land in controversy was about two and a half miles from the defendant's house, and neither of the parties had ever resided upon it when this litigation was begun. It was entirely unimproved at the date of its conveyance to the plaintiff. Before 1879 about twenty-two acres had been fenced and put in cultivation. It was this improved part of the tract which the court found had been adversely held by the defendant. The plaintiff appears to have participated in the work of improving and cultivating it under the defendant's direction and supervision. The defendant paid the taxes, and when all or any part of the improved land was rented it was done under a contract made with him, and the rents were paid to him. The plaintiff cultivated part of the land after he ceased to reside with the defendant, and the latter testified that this was done under an agreement to pay him rent. There was some other evidence tending to show that such an agreement was made. But the defendant in his testimony denied that he had ever rented any part of the land. The evidence discloses no controversy as to the title prior to the year 1886, in which the suit was brought. The defendant testified that Ham held the land under a tax title, and that he had the deed made to the plaintiff because he was advised that the title could be "better defended" in his son's name, and that he had no intention of giving the land to the plaintiff. One witness testified that about the date of Ham's conveyance the defendant exhibited to him a deed conveying the land in controversy to the plaintiff, and stated that it was made "as a deed of trust" to avoid trouble about the title. There was some evidence tending to show that the plaintiff had not claimed to be the owner of the land until a short time before bringing the suit. On the part of the plaintiff a witness testified that defendant, on the day the land was bought, stated that he purchased it for the plaintiff. Others testified to subsequent declarations made by the defendant at different times between 1875 and 1886, to the effect that the land was bought for the plaintiff or belonged to him. And...