{ "id": 1311004, "name": "Hargett v. Hill, Fontaine & Company", "name_abbreviation": "Hargett v. Hill, Fontaine & Co.", "decision_date": "1912-01-08", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "510", "last_page": "513", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "101 Ark. 510" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ark.", "id": 8808, "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 34, "name_long": "Arkansas", "name": "Ark." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "75 Ark. 52", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1502560 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/75/0052-01" ] }, { "cite": "72 Ark. 67", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1505548 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/72/0067-01" ] }, { "cite": "73 Ark. 489", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1503973 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/73/0489-01" ] }, { "cite": "67 Ark. 200", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1152563 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/67/0200-01" ] }, { "cite": "68 Ark. 314", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1334036 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/68/0314-01" ] }, { "cite": "71 Ark. 605", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1507770 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/71/0605-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 398, "char_count": 7799, "ocr_confidence": 0.617, "pagerank": { "raw": 6.920704532817092e-08, "percentile": 0.4201818329948966 }, "sha256": "2662953f616dd4f904a6be781172914faa4f934d5790f273accf7b6a51d91f69", "simhash": "1:a6377b9b1e9dda0a", "word_count": 1371 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:07:15.186986+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "Hargett v. Hill, Fontaine & Company." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Wood, J.\nOn the 20th day of October, 1903, one E W. Powell and his wife executed a deed to certain lots in Greene County to Hill, Fontaine & Company. The deed was also signed by the appellant, Winnie E. Hargett, who was then unmarried, and who was the daughter of E. W. Powell. This suit was brought by the appellant against the appellees to have appellees declared trustees for appellant for an undivided one-half interest in the lands and to have the deed cancelled as a cloud upon appellant\u2019s title, and asking that a master be appointed with power to state an account as to rents, profits, taxes, etc. The complaint set up that appellant derived title by inheritance from her mother, Mary M. Powell, who was the wife of E. W. Powell, and that E. W. Powell also obtained possession to a one-half interest in the lands through mesne conveyances from Mary Powell. The complaint alleged that after the death of her mother appellant and her father continued to reside upon the lands as their home until the day the deed was executed by him as above mentioned; that she was a minor at the time, being only sixteen years of age, and that, although said deed purports to have been signed and acknowledged by her, in truth and in fact she had not signed the deed, nor did she authorize any person to sign her name to it, nor did she acknowledge it; that the deed as to her was wholly and entirely a forgery, and was null and void; that her father died on the 30th day of August, 1908.\nShe further alleged that, while her father was in possession of the lands, after the death of her mother, he fraudulently and wrongfully attempted to procure the title of appellant to the lands in controversy by letting the same forfeit for taxes and acquired title thereto through said forfeiture.\nThe answer was a denial of the allegations of the complaint, and set up that the plaintiff was of full age at the time the deed was executed, and that the defendants were innocent purchasers for value.\nTwo issues are presented by the pleadings; one of fact and one of law: First, was the appellant eighteen years old on October 20,1903, when the deed to appellees was executed? Second, the land in controversy being the homestead of appellant, conceding that she was 18 years of age, could she convey her homestead interest?\n1. The first question is purely one of fact. The chancery court found that \u201cWinnie Powell, on October 20, 1903, joined in the execution of said deed to Napoleon Hill and Nolan Fontaine, and at said time she was over eighteen years old, but further finds that she was under twenty-one years old, and that by her said deed she conveyed to said Napoleon Hill and Nolan Fontaine all her right, title and interest in and to\u201d the lands in controversy, (describing them). He further found that the lands constituted the homestead of appellant at the time she joined in the execution of the deed.\nThe testimony concerning the age of appellant is conflicting. It could serve no useful purpose as a precedent to set it out in detail and to give our reasons for the conclusion we have reached. We have examined the record carefully, and are of the opinion that the preponderance of the evidence is in favor of the chancellors\u2019s finding, and certainly it can not be said that his finding of facts is clearly against the weight of the evidence. This b\u00e9ing true, his judgment quieting the title of the grantee of appellees as against the appellant must be affirmed. Leonard v. Leonard, post p. 522; Greer v. Fontaine, 71 Ark. 605; Mooney v. Tyler, 68 Ark. 314; Whitehead v. Henderson, 67 Ark. 200; Hinkle v. Broadwater, 73 Ark. 489; Sulek v. McWilliams, 72 Ark. 67; Norman v. Pugh, 75 Ark. 52.\n2. Section 6, art. 9 of the Constitution of 1874, provides that if \u25a0 the owner of a homestead die leaving children said children will be entitled to the rents and profits of the homestead \u201ctill each of them arrives at twenty-one years of age \u2014 each child\u2019s right to cease at twenty-one years of age \u2014 and the shares to go to the younger children.\u201d\nSection 10, art. 9, provides: \u201cThe homestead provided for in this article shall inure to the benefit of the minor children * * * after the decease of the parents.\u201d\nSection 3756 of Kirby\u2019s Digest is as follows: \u201cFemales of the age of eighteen years shall be considered of full age for all purposes.\u201d\nThis section of the statute is a part of the act of 1873. It is contended by the appellant that the above provision of the Constitution of 1874 repealed the statute of 1873 in so far as the right of females over eighteen years of age to abandon the homestead is concerned.\nFemales over eighteen years of age have no right to convey the homestead privilege granted under the Constitution to another so as to deprive other children of the rents and profits or the use and enjoyment of the land constituting the homestead between the time when such female has arrived at the age of eighteen years and the time when she shall arrive at the age of twenty-one for the reason that no child\u2019s rights in the homestead under the Constitution cease until it arrives at twenty-one years of age, and the share that each child has in the homestead when it arrives at twenty-one years of age goes to the younger children.\nThe homestead right of female children does not cease until they arrive at twenty-one years of age, so far as the rights of other children are concerned; but when there is only one child, and that child a female, she may relinquish or abandon her homestead right after becoming of age, for in such case she has the only right in the homestead, and she may dispose of it as she pleases after she becomes of age; and, under the above statute (section 3756 Kirby\u2019s Digest), she becomes of age for all purposes when she is eighteen years old. The homestead is a privilege which she may relinquish or abandon after arriving at that age so long as the rights of other children are not affected thereby. Of course, if there were other minor children, under the Constitution if she attempted to convey or relinquish her homestead right after becoming eighteen years old, she could not do so, for the rights of other children would be affected by her attempted relinquishment.\nIn this case, when the appellant conveyed the land in controversy to the appellee, she Was sui juris; and as'there were no other minor children to be affected thereby, her conveyance amounted to an abandonment or relinquishment of her homestead rights in favor of appellees.\nThe court did.not err in dismissing, for want of equity, her complaint, in which she set up a claim against appellees for rents and profits, etc.\nThe decree is correct, and is affirmed.", "type": "majority", "author": "Wood, J." } ], "attorneys": [ "J. N. Beakley and Huddleston & Taylor, for appellant.", "Hawthorne & Hawthorne, for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "Hargett v. Hill, Fontaine & Company.\nOpinion delivered January 8, 1912.\n1. Appeal and error \u2014 conclusiveness of chancellor\u2019s findings.\u2014 A chancellor\u2019s finding of facts will be sustained on appeal unless it is clearly against the preponderance of the testimony. (Page 512.)\n2. Homestead \u2014 when female child may abandon. \u2014 Under Const. 1874, art. 9, sec. 6, providing that if the owner of a homestead die leaving children said children shall be entitled to the rents and profits of the homestead \u201ctill each of them arrives at twenty-one years of age, each child\u2019s right to cease at twenty-one years\u2019 of age and the shares to go to the younger children, \u201d held that the homestead right of female children does not cease until they arrive at twenty-one years of age, so far as younger children are concerned, but when there are no younger children, a female child, may relinquish or abandon the homestead as soon as she reaches the age of eighteen years. (Page 512.)\nAppeal from Greene Chancery Court; Edward D. Robertson, Chancellor;\naffirmed.\nJ. N. Beakley and Huddleston & Taylor, for appellant.\nHawthorne & Hawthorne, for appellee." }, "file_name": "0510-01", "first_page_order": 530, "last_page_order": 533 }