147 Ark. 513 | Ark. | 1921
(after stating the facts). The decree of the chancellor was correct. It is true, as contended by counsel for appellant, that where a grantor executés a deed in the absence of the grantee and has it recorded, this amounts to a delivery where the record shows that the acceptance of the deed would be to the advantage of the donee. Graham v. Suddeth, 97 Ark. 283.
There is nothing in the present record, however, that tends to show that the deed was to the advantage of the minor, even if it could be said that the record shows that it was intended to be made to the minor.
The deed was made in October., 1899, when the infant was only a few weeks old. The deed was for forty acres of land and recited a consideration of $1,000. One hundred and sixty dollars of it were paid in cash, and the balance was payable in yearly installments for each succeeding year until the 15th day of November, 1905.
There is nothing in the record to show whether it would be for the benefit of the minor or not to have had the land conveyed to him. Moreover, it appears from the recitals of the deed that the cash payment was made by the grantee and that the deferred payments were evidenced by promissory notes to be signed by the grantee. J. B. Holland was an infant at that time, and, of course, could not have made the cash payment and could not have signed the notes for the deferred payments.
It is fairly inferable from what happened at the time, that J. W. Holland purchased the land for himself, and by mistake the deed was made to J. B. Holland. It was shown that the full initials of J. W. Holland were J. W. B. Holland. J. W. Holland went into possession of the land himself and lived there until he died. In the latter part of 1906 or the first part of 1907 he mortgaged the land to secure a loan of $600 made to him by the New England Securities Company. His wife joined him in the execution of this deed. All these facts and circumstances tend to show that J. W. Holland bought the land for himself, and that by mistake the deed was made in the name of J. B. Holland, instead of J. W. Holland. The whole substance of the transaction and the conduct of J. W. Holland and his wife until he died show that he purchased the land for himself. The only contradiction of it is the testimony of his widow to the effect that her ■ husband always spoke of the land as belonging to his infant son, J. B. Holland. Her testimony, in this respect, is contradicted by her own action in the premises. When her husband desired to mortgage the land to secure a loan, she readily signed the deed as his wife and relinquished her dower in the premises. This act indicated that she regarded the land as belonging to her husband at that time. She knew that her husband paid the interest on the loan, and she paid the interest thereon for the first year after his death. Her conduct then tends to show that she regarded the land as belonging to' her husband and is entitled to more weight than her bald testimony to the contrary after her husband’s death.
It follows that the decree will be affirmed.
