Wood v. Wood

• Decision Date: 23 October 1911
• Citation: 140 S.W. 275,100 Ark. 370
• Parties: WOOD v. WOOD
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

140 S.W. 275

100 Ark. 370

WOOD v. WOOD

Supreme Court of Arkansas

October 23, 1911

Appeal from Garland Chancery Court; A. Curl, Chancellor; affirmed.

STATEMENT BY THE COURT.

This suit was brought by appellee against appellant for divorce and to have certain real estate described in the complaint declared to be held in trust for appellee. The complaint alleged that the appellee furnished the money to appellant with which to buy the real estate described, expecting that appellant would take title to the property in her name or in their joint names as tenants in the entirety, but that instead he put the title to the property in his sister, Mary J. McClure. Mary J. McClure was made party to the suit. Appellant filed an answer and cross complaint, denying the allegations of the complaint and setting up that the money with which the property was purchased was his own money; that the money was obtained through the sale of a lease held by him, for which he received the sum of $ 4,600, and "that it was agreed between him and the plaintiff (appellee) that be should have $ 2,000 of said money, to invest in his own name and for his own benefit, and that plaintiff should invest the balance of the money for her own benefit. That, in pursuance of that agreement, he purchased the real estate which appellee now seeks to have declared her property." He further set up that appellee was in possession of certain real estate and personal property, which are designated of the value of about $ 20,000, which he alleges was accumulated by the joint endeavors of the appellant and appellee. He prayed that the complaint be dismissed, and that, in the event of a decree of divorce in favor of the appellee, the property mentioned be equitably divided between them, and that the title of the property which he had placed in Mary J McClure be quieted in her. Mary J. McClure adopted the answer of the appellant. Appellee answered the cross complaint of appellant, in which she reiterated the allegations of her original complaint, and denied all the material allegations of the cross complaint. The court, after hearing the evidence, which is quite voluminous, entered a decree granting to the appellee an absolute divorce and confirming the title to all the property owned and held by the appellee in her and confirming the title to the property in the name of Mary J. McClure in her (Mary J. McClure). The court dismissed the cross complaint of appellant in everything except as to quieting the title to the property held by Mary J. McClure, and dismissed the complaint of appellee as to the property held in the name of Mary J. McClure. The appellant moved to modify the decree, setting up substantially the same facts that he had set forth in his answer and cross complaint, and praying the same relief. The court denied the motion, and appellant appealed from his order refusing to modify the decree. Appellee appealed from the order of the court dismissing her complaint as to the real estate described therein and held in the name of Mary J. McClure.

Judgment affirmed.

Appellant pro se.

M. S. Cobb, for appellee.

OPINION

WOOD, J., (after stating the facts).

As to the property in controversy, appellant contends that it was acquired by the joint earnings of himself and wife, while appellee contends that it was purchased with her own money. This is purely a question of fact, and it could serve no useful purpose to discuss the evidence, which is very conflicting. As to the real estate in the name of appellee even if appellant purchased and paid for same in part with his own funds, since the deeds were taken in the name of his wife, and not in his own or...