{ "id": 1537560, "name": "Jarrett v. Jarrett", "name_abbreviation": "Jarrett v. Jarrett", "decision_date": "1914-05-18", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "134", "last_page": "138", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "113 Ark. 134" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ark.", "id": 8808, "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 34, "name_long": "Arkansas", "name": "Ark." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "67 Ark. 239", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1152521 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/67/0239-01" ] }, { "cite": "85 N. W. 576", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.W.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "126 Mich. 217", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Mich.", "case_ids": [ 1542168 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/mich/126/0217-01" ] }, { "cite": "28 So. 487", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "So.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "126 Ala. 309", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ala.", "case_ids": [ 3500425 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ala/126/0309-01" ] }, { "cite": "97 Ark. 33", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1318853 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/97/0033-01" ] }, { "cite": "45 Ark. 341", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1892052 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/45/0341-01" ] }, { "cite": "34 Ark. 63", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1875666 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/34/0063-01" ] }, { "cite": "56 Ark. 563", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1326092 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/56/0563-01" ] }, { "cite": "48 Ark. 230", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1887710 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/48/0230-01" ] }, { "cite": "47 Ark. 445", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1888758 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/47/0445-01" ] }, { "cite": "163 S. W. 521", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "111 Ark. 305", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1540377 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/111/0305-01" ] }, { "cite": "56 Ark. 563", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1326092 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/56/0563-01" ] }, { "cite": "47 Ark. 445", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1888758 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/47/0445-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 378, "char_count": 7055, "ocr_confidence": 0.504, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.052586624913983e-07, "percentile": 0.5543346349536209 }, "sha256": "c8eca4cbee2c63ce66652e6bfbbbd16373822652e2f39ca3368866674860b2f4", "simhash": "1:6475a4bd010e1759", "word_count": 1232 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:15:31.349152+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "Jarrett v. Jarrett." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "McCulloch:, C. J.\nThis is an action at law insti- . tuted by appellant to recover a tract of land in Randolph County, Arkansas, containing 160 acres, the parties to the action all claiming title from a common source, one IT. C. Jarrett, who died on November 4, 1869, while occupying the land as his homestead. He left several chil-. dren, all of whom-are parties to this action, and a widow, who died in the year 1909. The widow occupied the land with her children until she remarried in the year 1884, when she and the children removed therefrom, but the widow continued to hold possession of the land through her tenants and collected the rents up to the time of her death.\nThere was an .administrator of the estate of H. C. Jarrett, one Thomas Simington, who sold the lands -under order of the court to pay debts on December 18, 1877, one Thomas Poster being the purchaser at the administrator\u2019s sale, and he subsequently conveyed to one of the defendants in this case.\nThe defendants plead the bar of the statute of limitation, and also defend under the conveyance to one of them from the purchaser at the administrator\u2019s sale.\nThe court gave a peremptory instruction in favor of the defendants, and the plaintiff has appealed.\nThe rights of the parties are to he determined by the homestead laws of the State which existed at the time of the death of H. C. Jarrett in the year 1869. That was under the Constitution of 1868, which provided that the homestead of the owner should, after his death, \u201cbe \u2018exempt from the payment of his debts, in all eases, during the minority of his children, and also so long as his widow shall remain unmarried, unless she be the owner of a homestead in her own right.\u201d Sec. 5, art. 12, Constitution 1868.\nThe homestead was not subject to sale for the debts of the decedent until the widow abandoned it by remarriage in the year 1884.\nIt does not appear from the pleadings or proof that any of the children were minors at that time, and the remarriage of the widow operated as an abandonment of it as a homestead.\nNotwithstanding her abandonment of the land as a homestead, she still had the right to occupy the premises through her tenants by virtue' of her quarantine rights under the statute. Kirby\u2019s Digest, \u00a7 2704.\nHer occupancy was, therefore, not adverse to the heirs, and the statute of limitation did not begin to run against any of them so long as the occupancy of the widow continued. Brinkley v. Taylor, 111 Ark. 305, 163 S. W. 521.\nThe administrator\u2019s sale to Foster was void for the reason that the probate court was without jurisdiction to order it prior to the abandonment by the widow. McCloy & Trotter v. Arnett, 47 Ark. 445; Bond v. Montgomery, 56 Ark. 563.\nIt is insisted by counsel for defendant that the allegations of the complaint are not sufficient to show that the property was the homestead of H. C. Jarrett at the time of his death, it being contended that the allegations only state conclusions of law on that subject.\nWe are of the opinion, however,that the allegations of the complaint are sufficient, inferentially at least, to set forth the homestead right, and that in order to properly raise the defect's in the complaint a motion to make more definite and certain would be required. No such motion was presented, and the evidence establishes specifically all the facts necessary to make the property the homestead of H. C. Jarrett at the time of his death.\nWe are of the opinion, therefore, that the court erred in giving a peremptory instruction in favor of the defendants. Reversed and remanded for a new trial.", "type": "majority", "author": "McCulloch:, C. J." } ], "attorneys": [ "R. P. Taylor and G. PL. Henderson, for appellant.", "8. A. D. Eaton, for appellees." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "Jarrett v. Jarrett.\nOpinion delivered May 18, 1914.\n1. Homestead \u2014 governed by what law. \u2014 Deceased occupied land as his homestead when he died in 1869. A widow and children were left. The land was sold to pay debts in 1877, by an administrator under order of court. In an action between the heirs and the purchaser at the sale, held the rights of the parties are to be determined ' by the homestead laws of the State which existed at the time of deceased\u2019s dearth in 1869. (Dage 137.)\n2. Homestead \u2014 abandonment\u2014under constitution of 1868. \u2014 Where there are no minor children, the remarriage of the widow operates as an abandonment of the homestead, under the Constitution of 1868. (Page 137.)\n3. Dower \u2014 assignment of \u2014 quarantine bights \u2014 holding through tenants. \u2014 Under Kirby\u2019s Digest, \u00a7 2704, a widow may occupy the homestead of her deceased husband, until dower is assigned to .her, .and she may hold this possession through tenants. (Page 137.)\n4. Dower \u2014 quarantine\u2014eights of heirs. \u2014 The occupancy of the homestead by the widow, until dower is assigned to her, is not adverse to the heirs, and the statute of limitations will not run against the heirs, so long as the widow continues to occupy the \u25a0premises. (Page 137.)\n5. Homestead \u2014 sale\u2014abandonment\u2014jurisdiction of probate court.\u2014 An administrator\u2019s sale of a homestead for the debts of deceased, prior to the abandonment by the widow, is void, the probate court being without juirisdiotion to order isuch sale. (Page 137.)\n6. Homestead \u2014 allegation of \u2014 motion to make more definite.\u2014 Where a complaint inferentially establishes that the property was deceased\u2019s homestead, in order to raise the defects in the complaint, it\u2019 is necessary for the defendant to move to make more definite and certain. (Page 13*8.)\nAppeal from Randolph Circuit Court; John W. Meeksj Judge;\nreversed.\nR. P. Taylor and G. PL. Henderson, for appellant.\nUnder the undisputed evidence the administrator\u2019s sale was a nullity, by the provisions of the Constitution then in force, Const. 1868, art. 12, \u00a7 3. It was nearly seven years after his sale before she remarried or acquired any other-homestead. 47 Ark. 445; 48 Ark. 230; 56 Ark. 563.\nHaving by remarriage lost her claim of homestead in the premises, she, nevertheless, still retained her widow\u2019s right of quarantine. Kirby\u2019s Dig., \u00a7 2704; 34 Ark. 63. And her possession during the quarantine period may be by tenant or agent. 45 Ark. 341.\nNo assignment of dower ever having been made to the widow, her possession through tenantsmp to the time of her death was rightful, and not adverse to the rights of the heirs, but rather in subordination to their claims. 97 Ark. 33; 126 Ala. 309, 28 So. 487; 126 Mich. 217, 85 N. W. 576.\n8. A. D. Eaton, for appellees.\n\u2022If the probate court had no jurisdiction to order the sale, the burden was upon appellant to show that fact. Appellant\u2019s proof should show that the land was the homestead of H. C. Jarrett at the time of his death, and should negative both by pleading and proof that the debts, to pay which the land was ordered' sold,- were of a trust nature; for, if they -were trust debts, .the court had jurisdiction, notwithstanding the land may have been a homestead. 'Const. 1868, art. 12, \u00a7 3; 67 Ark. 239.\nThe widow\u2019s homestead right, if she had any, ceased immediately upon her remarriage. Const. 1868, art. 12, \u00a7 5. And thereupon appellant\u2019s cause of action accrued. He is long since barred by the statute of limitations." }, "file_name": "0134-01", "first_page_order": 154, "last_page_order": 158 }