Williford v. Williford

• Decision Date: 22 January 1912
• Parties: WILLIFORD v. WILLIFORD
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

143 S.W. 132

102 Ark. 65

WILLIFORD v. WILLIFORD

Supreme Court of Arkansas

January 22, 1912

Appeal from Crittenden Chancery Court; Edward D. Robertson Chancellor; affirmed.

Decree affirmed.

S. S Cockroft, for appellant.

L. P Berry, for appellee.

OPINION

FRAUENTHAL, J.

This is an action instituted by J. E. Williford and Sudie Reddit, the plaintiffs below, seeking to impress a trust upon a tract of land in Crittenden County, the legal title to which had been obtained by the defendants. S. P. Williford and his wife, E. E. Williford, and to divest them thereof and vest same in plaintiffs. The complaint alleged that the land, which is described as the west half of section 12, township 4 north, range 7 east, was owned by J. M. Williford, who departed this life in 1887, leaving surviving him as his only heirs the plaintiffs, who are his children; that the defendant S. P. Williford was duly appointed administrator of the estate of said J. M. Williford, and in that capacity took charge of said land and attended to paying the taxes thereon. It was also alleged that in 1886 Bettie and Ida Burgett instituted an ejectment suit against said J. M. Williford for the recovery of the above and other lands, which, after the death of J. M. Williford, was revived in the name of his said administrator and heirs. That suit resulted in a judgment in favor of the representatives of said Williford and was appealed to the Supreme Court, where the judgment was affirmed except as to a tract of land not involved in the present case. It was further alleged that said S. P. Williford as the administrator of said estate, and also representing the plaintiffs, attended to the above suit; that, after the determination of said case by the Supreme Court, the further litigation thereof was compromised, and, in pursuance of such compromise agreement, the said Burgetts conveyed to said J. E. Williford and Sudie Redditt a number of tracts of land, amongst which was the land involved in the present case. It was also alleged that, during the progress of said administration and said above litigation, the said S. P. Williford permitted a portion of said lands to forfeit for the nonpayment of levee taxes, and the remainder to forfeit for the nonpayment of State and county taxes; that through the sales therefor the defendant S. P. Williford obtained the legal title to said land, and subsequently conveyed same to his wife.

The defendants denied that the land involved in the present case was ever owned by J. M. Williford, or that he ever claimed the same, or that he was ever in the possession thereof. They denied that said land was included in the ejectment suit instituted by the said Burgetts against said J. M. Williford, or that the defendant S. P. Williford, as administrator of said estate of J. M. Williford, deceased, had ever taken charge of or paid taxes on said land. They also denied that the land was ever owned by said Bettie and Ida Burgett. They alleged that a portion of the land was sold under decree of the Crittenden Chancery Court in a suit instituted by the St. Francis Levee Board for the nonpayment of levee taxes thereon for the years of 1895, 1896 and 1897, and was purchased by S. P. Williford, who, in January, 1899, obtained the commissioner's deed therefor after due confirmation of such sale; that the remainder of said land was sold to the State for the nonpayment of taxes, and was thereafter acquired by the St. Francis Levee District, which sold and conveyed same to J. F. Hodges on March 21, 1896, and that said Hodges subsequently conveyed same to S. P. Williford. They also alleged that they had held the open and adverse possession of said land for more than seven years prior to the institution of the present suit, and they pleaded in bar of any claim or right that plaintiffs might have in the land the seven years, five years and two years statutes of limitation.

It appears that the present action was instituted on September 2, 1907, in the names of both J. E. Williford and Sudie Redditt as parties plaintiff, and that N.W. Norton, Esq., an attorney of the lower court, prepared and filed the complaint and therein represented the plaintiff J. E. Williford. On February 24, 1908, upon the motion of said N.W. Norton, Esq., the chancery court entered an order dismissing the case as to said J. E. Williford. On September 27, 1910, said J. E. Williford filed a petition in said chancery court asking that he be made or reinstated as a party plaintiff to the suit, upon the ground that same had been dismissed as to him without his knowledge and without authority. The lower court refused this request, and from the judgment denying his prayer to be made a party J. E. Williford has appealed to this court. Thereafter the case proceeded with said Sudie Reddit as sole plaintiff. Upon the final hearing, the court entered a decree dismissing the complaint for want of equity.

Relative to the petition of J. E. Williford to be made or reinstated as a party plaintiff to the suit, the chancery court heard testimony from which it found that said N.W. Norton, Esq., was duly employed by J. E. Williford to institute the action for him and was authorized thereafter to dismiss same as to him. From the testimony of N. W Norton, Esq., and the letters exhibited by him, we think the court was warranted in the finding which it made. After the nonsuit, J. E. Williford had, by virtue of section 5083 of Kirby's Digest, a right to bring a new suit within a year after he had suffered the nonsuit; and it appears that the court denied the petition to make or reinstate him as a party because it was not filed within said year. But we are of the opinion that this statute did not narrow the period of limitation, but extended the period provided by the general statute of limitation applicable to this cause of action, so that, if J. E. Williford was not then barred as to this action by the general statute of limitation, he had still the right to institute a new suit. Love v. Cahn, 93 Ark. 215, 124 S.W. 259. But, according to the view which we have taken of the merits of this case under the evidence which was adduced at the trial thereof, we do not deem it necessary to pass upon the question as to whether or not the court was in error or abused its discretion in refusing said J. E. Williford to be made or reinstated as a party plaintiff in the action. And for the same reason we do not deem it necessary to note or pass upon the questions raised by the pleas of the statute of limitation.

This was an action instituted for the purpose of impressing upon the land involved herein a constructive trust and to declare the defendants as trustees thereof for the benefit of the plaintiffs. The right of plaintiffs to this relief is predicated upon the allegations that the land was owned originally by their father, from whom they acquired title by descent, and that the defendant S. P. Williford occupied a relation of trust and confidence as to them in regard to this property which he violated by purchasing the land for the nonpayment of taxes and by thus obtaining the legal title thereto. It has been held that no one can be permitted to purchase an interest where he has a duty to perform that is inconsistent with the character of a purchaser. When therefore, an administrator or a trustee, without knowledge of his beneficiary, purchases the property charged to his care, either at a private or public sale, equity will impress a constructive trust upon the property so purchased for the benefit of those beneficially entitled thereto. 3 Pom. Eq. § 1052; Wright v. Walker, 30 Ark. 44; West v. Waddill, 33 Ark. 575; McGaughey v. Brown, 46 Ark. 25; Montgomery v. Black, 75 Ark. 184, 86 S.W. 1006; Bank of Pine Bluff v. Levi, 90 Ark. 166, 118 S.W. 250. The foundation of the right of the plaintiffs to have a trust for...