948 . LANGI4SS V. MgC.AAT . H.x. [169. ' dbliVeidNoVeriibejr : 23, '1925: '; • 1. s APPEA 1 L 1 AND , ERROR—DIRECTED vEumq.—Where a , ;verdict was t;:1 . 1•., '1111 • 1,• • •• • • di rect ed against appellant, the testimony will . be viewed "on appeal in the r` lfghe MOst favorable " fo her: ' 1 , . • • - • ' 2: 3 PUici-IASE-Pbg§ES§ION NOTitt.—Where 'posses-,land.l*as int one , :who claimed title l .under. conti : act 'With . : , the,Owner,'apOther.,w,ho took deed trom the Owner's; heir at ;law ; which such possession •continued took sulbjeet to the former's claim -of title. , . •■!,,,, , 3. 'Estori*L E' • Fite'T • OF Liiitn.—iOne in; possession and claiming qee' tO 'contraet i wherebY the owner:Was , to,./Inake • ConveSidnee"toihefin "coliSidration: of !Suiiporting the ov;rner • pot fbei estopi5edl ,from;inaYink . sUeh claim: by a -letter if) : One wnO • subsequently took . a deed from the 'owner's heir, in..which she . stated that at her death the heir:would receive the property. 4 SPEIFIC PERFORMANCE—ORAL ' CONTRACT TO CONVEY LAl20 .,In an , 'aetion' at la* 'to confirrin title tO . -Proieity bOnght bS'T ithe grantee . of; 'the title-owner's- ifeir , 'at laW, ;:; an interVener ' in' possessión,.! claiming title,-;under un-ioral• :cOntraet whereby the owner wis - to; convey the property ; toher consideration, of support; may., asltfOr a transfer ,i,o equity in' order to have ' the contract specifi-' cally performed. 5.' 'Qupstpaisi.—In an actiOn to confirm, title ';• =brOukht under' deed 'f' iöin • -the title-O*Uer' " , .at• law, where an intmivener ,claimed ..eqUitable"; title Under oral contract . with such ,owtierwyyhereby; ;she, !was,. to: receive ,.a: conveyancein consi4eration of support • of the owner, evidence ' held sufficient tO make a question' for the jury as to,,lier right , of possession. . ,; Appeal from independence dircuit Court.; Dene H. Coleman, Judge ; reversed. I. J. Matheny, for appellant. J. Paul' Ward, for appellee. SMITH, J. Appellee J. V. McCarthy filed a petition in the chancery court of Independence County to confirm his title to a 160 acre tract of land in that county. Appellant Mrs. Langless intervened in the case, and was made a party thereto, and the cause was transferred to the circuit court, where there was a trial before a jury. At the conclusion of tbe testimony the court directed the
LANoss. V. MoCARrnr. 949 • jury to return; a verdict in favor of Appellee, and this was done. In view- of , the fact that the verdict was directed. - f by. the court against ,appellant . .we, must ..view the testi7-: f mony in the. light most fayorable: to, her, and-,wh . en. this. is done it may •be . summarized as . follows:— - A. C. Hannas • awned a farm,:•of whichhbout fifty. acres. were -under ., fence, an i s" about ..twent,y acres in cultivation.: Hannas and, his , wife had ,an only. child,. t, son,. ‘ who .left;.home in:1902, , and he had not_ thereafter,r. returned; .and.he wrote ,ta , his .parents . at ;rare_ and,,irregular intervals., ., 7 :„ - • . . j On September 13; : 1905, Hannas oonveyed.'thO to, .his wife, and , Mc...17-lannas .: died , s,oQnter :executing this conveyance. 1 - • Appellant Mrs. Langless • Was :sister-in, law of Mrs: Hannas, andshe and her husbaridlived-on-a farm adjoin-: inglhe one oWned :by the Hanna& - A portion Of:the Lang-less farrn had been purchased . by them from- the Ilannas. . Upon the death of Mr. Hannas his wife proposed to Mr: and Mts.-Langless'that they their 'faith andMove to the Haimas place andiake charge of it and - of her, and agreed• tbat; if thiS 'Was done and Mrs. HanhaS"was' furnished a ilOme . d-titing the-remainder of her life, and was. taken care of . by:' Mr. and. ' MrS'. Langless, 'theydtild haVe' the-farm an Mis. HanbAs' death:')1' Pursuant to this propOsition, Mr. and Mrs. LankleSS sold-their own farm,' afid moVed to :the Hannas . pihee :the day 'after Mr.. Haiinas • died . Und'• ' fook , -Charge :Of* a.tia'•, thereafter furniShed Mrs . Haimas a' home; and rook Care.'' of heC until' the time of her • deatli; Which occUrredl'April).. 5, : 1914. , After , the death of Mrs. Haimas; Mr-S1 th.hg-L:1 less caused ths Hannas farm • tb he . ag sessed in his:ilacine;•• and he paid' the . taxes thei6Oh' in his awn' ham& his'' death; whieh occurred in , 1918, and after • the death of Mr: Langless, Mrs. Langless caused the land to be assesdedr-: in her name, and r she paid'the' takes thereat eontinuansly until 1922. ;.;; • ,: • ; r71•:7
950 LANOLES v. MbOAATRY: [169 jiangleSS put a 'tenant in possession named 'Bishop, WhO paid her rent fot that year. Bishop reinaine& in possession during the . year 1922 butrefused tO p'dy the rent to . lthe and 'attorhed 'to aPiSeilee. Bishdp continued in possession 'during the . yéar 4923, and ! has'. not paid the rent :to anyone for that !year. , . * MrS: : LariglesS . teStif' ied that 'Mr g .i 'llaiihas •agreed: Mrs.' Langless "should haVe- the' , and that . on 'the' day : bef Ore' she died, she ''aSked" that 'a . teikhbdr',i ' who — was'a, juStiCe of , the peace, be Sent fcit tO prepardthld'cleed,': but Mrs. Hannas' direction in this matter wa'S ' plied,witht on,account of , her :condition: n'h'er 'erOSs2 aaluiliatiOn: * 'connsel.: for. aPPellee;:' Mrs. Langless was asked the question: "Q:' 'Wasn't it . ' \ your /understanding, i and isn't-it your Understanding now, thatypu were tolave thd, home tot liVe in as long as:y.ou Mrs: . Langless:.answeted. : No, .sir;:. it -was any understanding that E should have . a -deed to :7 it. t.t ; Laiagless.,Nyas ,corrobcwated by several . neighbors ,as to the cireumstanCes,uuder, which; she . , and her, husband , moyed to and took .possession: of .thei,Hannas,, place, l and ft :was 'shown by :legally sufficient. testimony,,, if;not, the, undisputed. testimony, that.Vr s:. Langless fully,, performed ' her agreement inoregard,td. furuishi-ng [ Hannas a,h . ome and caring for her until her death. '11 .42 ;lir; ■1, Qtober 11, 1922,.1ark Hannas,,who was the:only child ofMr. and-Mrs., Hannas, and who, neyer: returned,i, home after 1.çaving it' in 1902,, executed, a, walwanty:dee'd,f to; Appellee for , a consideration recited to ibe,$500 cash in . hand,paid i andit ! was upon this deedthatiappellee c4ted,his;;suit !to. confirm .his title, and the! cause :was . transferged.;to the circuit court when it develdped , that: thez. e was woccupant pos .session clafming titlo tq the: lattd.•: ; , ;•_ :.1 J ;-There' was 'introduced in evidence a letter from appellant to appellee, which reads as follows :
ARM] LANG4ESS :v. MCCARTHY: 951 ; • ' -“Ilutchinson, A u l g.' 21. , 1922. ' . `Lawyer •McParthy, , "Pear . Sir : I understand thatSonie one' has Written to yen .aboiit, this • place thatI ath livingon-.. They are trying to Make trOuble;fernie.. • I Should like' t .6, kfiötv ;who Wrote. tO i yon if : Y011 . *ill -sc y kind as Ito tell ,me;'as siicty-AVe•• years. 'oldy and no ' One 'to -help Me in•anyl.WAY: fai . ai; the place ;is concerned,' think it is. ;miiae; letiny lion:mho: old to , help. ta'ki care: of Mark Flannas!' father 'and .mother yas Woula not . Stay . an.d' take ;care ofithem. ' NoW , they • are all.dead and-also 'my -Inisbandi, which-leaVes Me 46 , one to* take *Care of me; Which, a;nY 'one tries,.to fake this' Place, ; • Can show whatA have, done for:them a11 When ' 1! am through.riti Willi go -to: Mark Hanna& • NOW; you are- gentletnan;fwlaich,I thinkyou are, you will let me khoW.-who. answer.and oblige. • ••• . .,.!..• ' .-•. , • , . • :!` Mrs...Annie I_JangleSs.., ')-. • ' ;. .• Hutchinson, ,Ark."7 It '18. , insisted .. that . the • Statement -. contained' , hi thiS letter; that .P'When. -I; ain . throUgh;. will• go to!,Mark reCognition of the title . 6f . Mark,Ilaimas; .and 'an •admissien by Mrs; tangles& that .she the land. It .appears, however,-.that Mrs.- LangleSS:was'a 'woman withOut business, experience-'or knoWleage., and she ekplained that, although-the farna.hdelbeeu.givOn ber; she supposekin.view, of Oe.fact, that she was, ' alone in the world," as she expressedit, and-had:no heirs, that the land 'would revert,:to,:Mark ijarrnason.that account .her'death, ana i-that- she :aid .not mean:to, admit that the.. land. did' not ( belong; to -her pursuant to .yerooritract ,; -2:: • It ;was the ' theory of the• court that ,Mrs-:,tangless had a permiSsive possession only, which ;had:not ;ripened into title by,adver ge posSession, and in directingthe verr diet the court said:: !'There . no evidence ;in. this case that the deed was ever:made:' There is evidence that they said r -they wOuld • make it, but it;was,,never made:., They
92 LA/sTGLESS v. MCCARTHY: [169 were there by permission. Gentlemen of the jury, as a matter of law in this case, it is your duty :to return a verdict f9r the,plaintiff.”. . . As: we , understand the case, viewing. it . i • the light most .favorable to appellant, her. right to,..recoyer is •not dependent 011 an:adverse :possession, although thetesti-mony .shows a:possessionrof a- pprt1gli9t tlie-:1a4d for longer ;period than. sev.en years after. the death- of • Mrs. Ilannas. -- The real source! of.Mrs-. Langless'. title -is: the contraet under-which ,she.'sold her own.farm, and moved to • the •Ilannas -farm. . All the.Troper .partieS to enforee -this -diontract :are not-before-the court, i and if. a -Sped& performance thereof is aske'd.by;the 'execution of a :deed the -Cause shohld be.: transferred . back sto the chancery court; Where 'that. relief . COuld be granted; if thelestimony, firits entirety; • w'arra.nts • that -relief: • ' • ., •• The case. of Williams v. Willi:arms, 128 Ark. 1, is. Sufficiently likethiS • casefoin. the standpoint of Mrs. Lang-entitle• her to affirmative relief if it be adjudged that ,the r teaimony bas established her contention. The Syllabus! in:that -case reads,as ;follows `.`;DeceaSed agreed O.-give -certain • -lands to..plaintiff.- if he would' -come to deceased'& home,: live with-him. and take- -dare -of :him; plaintiff-left ibis. eniploysient. in: a 'nearby town, and r&- moVed;•to -.deceased's , hoine, !and- -performed his part of the 'undertaking.. Held,' after deceased ?s death; that &linty would ' enforce the - agreement, ..aithotigh :the -same' waS only otally . made.' • - • • • -:' • • : • ! 'It- iS 'recited' in • the Opinion' in !. that! ease th a t there WaS seine doubt : -Whether the agreeMent Was that: . the OVher: of -the- land waS to convey-te -the claiinant during his lifetime, or was to convey it . by last will. The basis :of -the claini in:that ' case was that -there was -.a contract Whereby claimant Was :to get the property in- considera tion services; and we - "It . is 'entirely -unird-portant 'as: O .the 1:?a.rticular method in which the property . Wa's -to be conVeyed. ! The. proof having established ther Contract'and a perforniance of itS terms by the -plain-
ARR.] LANGLESS 3.). MCCARTHY. follows that a court of equity should grant 4j111 , . . The deed. to appellee from the heir-at-law was niade while. Mrs. liangless .was in yossession, an& .appellee therefore took his deed subject to Mrs . Langless'..clabn of title, whatever it ,inight be.. Her • possession : was an assertion of whatever title she had, and should have put appellee upon inquiry. First Nat..Banik of Paris v. Gray, 168 Ark. 12. The letter from Mrs. Langless . to appellee is, of course, evidenCe AS to ' what this 'title was, hut we think there is nothing. in•it which" estops Mrs. Langless from claiming the . title, and Stt.Q has the right to explain any ambiguity in theletter. This; letter'was written , to appel-lee before he . received his _deed from the -son-and heir-at-law- of- Mrs. HannaS, And , in . - this-Jetter Mr8: . Langless stated th4t- Ole oqi,iskt.tli:e 16.4a WaS hers; . -. She did say thaf when she waS "through" it (the lOnd):imould,•Ygo to, Mark: Halmos." -.She did- not -explain whether •this. woilldr be -done by aconVeyance -froth her, , • obrY,operation of law, and . APpellee' tOok hiS..deed Without 'asking any e . xpl . anation of . this,ambiguous statement,•and:Mrs. Lang- less • as the right to explain the letter, as it contains nothing Whic of posses • si . o • n •. h estops . h . er • froni .asserting A present ,iright . . .,• ,,. • . .,i.t For the err* , in .dircting , a , yerdia in,appellees favor, the judg . m ent be. i.Leyersed;, and; if-, appellant asks the affirmative s . , relief:, of , , specific / performance and brings the proper .parties before theicourt to r obtain; that, relief,. it , wonld be : prOper, to ,transfer _the cause back; to the , _olancery f. court, ..iss,ue ; .could ,he . properly: disposed of, • But, whether, this is. done or rnot, ; appellant. has the right to,assert .her equitoble• title .in..this suit At law ; and the :testimony offer ed r in her hehalf. ,is, sufficient to make a question : for the jury, as , to her right :ef pQs-- session, in . Opposition to ; appellee 's a present right of . possession. Trylock.voTayl'or, 26 54•;• Stedge;
Matkins,,154 Ark:,i509.;! Marsh -T:Trwin,
155 Ail.' -'371 ; ;.N.ich;oL§:*: Shearb94 49- Ark. '75; Gates• Gray, 85 Ark. 25; Nattin v. Riley,. 54 Ark. 30; ReeVe''si: eldekboi , ; ' 46' . Ark.'272;' . 11/do•re v: . 111cOloy; 70 'Ark.' 505; Geui pner;11 Ail: . 454; Crawfo . r&Coitnty Bank v. .g attbn,-'87Ark: 142:- ,`• ' -''" • !IT :Itoti•
You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.