{
  "id": 1594375,
  "name": "Fulk v. Robinson",
  "name_abbreviation": "Fulk v. Robinson",
  "decision_date": "1919-10-20",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "212",
  "last_page": "214",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "140 Ark. 212"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "13 Ark. 422",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        8728211
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/13/0422-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 302,
    "char_count": 5747,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.509,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.963767120129636e-08,
      "percentile": 0.31255663940252887
    },
    "sha256": "349207984fe11cf91f679df3915b62b306dfc590041d735cc96cd00d1ba4f5c6",
    "simhash": "1:a2e0543add8a1b98",
    "word_count": 1007
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:17:16.496432+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Fulk v. Robinson."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "WOOD, J.\nIn this case the appellants, Florence M. Fulk, Gus Fulk and Gfuy Fulk each owned an undivided one-third interest in certain lots in the city of Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas. Wives of the appellants Gus and Guy Fulk deeded to appellant Florence M. Fulk all their rights of dower and homestead in and to these lots. Thereafter the appellants sold the lots to the appellee for a consideration of $900, evidenced by $250 cash and notes for the balance. The appellants tendered to the appellee their warranty deed signed and acknowledged by each of them. The appellee refused to accept the deed on the ground that it did not contain relinquishment of dower and homestead of the wives of Guy and Gus Fulk and was not signed by their wives.\nThis suit was instituted by the appellee against the' appellants setting up the contract and praying a rescission thereof and that appellants be enjoined from negotiating the notes and be required to deliver same into the registry of the court for cancellation and have judgment against the appellants in the sum of $250.\nThe appellants answered admitting the truth of the allegations contained in the complaint and setting up in defense the facts as above set forth.\nThe appellee demurred to the answer, and upon these pleadings the court rendered a decree sustaining the demurrer and giving the appellee judgment for the amount sued for and canceling the unpaid notes. From which judgment is this appeal.\nThe question presented by this appeal is whether or not a wife can convey her inchoate right of dower and homestead to a stranger by executing a deed in which her husband does not join. The conveyance by the wives of their dower and homestead to Florence M. Fulk was on February 3, 1919. The contract of purchase between appellee and appellants was on February 24, 1919.\nSection 741 of Kirby\u2019s Digest provides that \u201ca married woman may relinquish her dower in any of the real estate of her husband by joining with him in a deed of conveyance thereof and by acknowledging the same in a manner hereinafter prescribed.\u201d Under this section the deeds of the wives of Guy and Gus Fulk to the appellant Florence Fulk would have been invalid as a conveyance of their right of dower because their husbands did not join in the execution of those deeds.\nBut appellants contend that these deeds were valid and operated as a conveyance of the dower interest of the wives under Act 324 of the Acts of 1919, page 241, which reads as follows: \u201cA married woman may relin: quish her dower in any of the real estate of her husband by joining with him in the deed of conveyance thereof, or by a separate instrument executed to her husband\u2019s grantee or any one claiming title under him, and acknowledging the same in the manner hereinafter prescribed.\u201d\nThe conveyance of the wives of Guy and Gus Fulk to Florence M. Fulk were prior to the passage of the act 324 of the Acts of 1919, March 21, 1919. That act has no retroactive effect and does not purport to be in any manner a curative statute. Therefore, it does not operate to validate the conveyance of the wives of Gus and Guy Fulk. Moreover, if it could be so construed, these conveyances could not be brought within the terms of that act because they were not made direct to their husbands\u2019 grantee or any one claiming title under him.\nWhere a statutory method of conveyance is prescribed, that method must be followed to make the conveyance valid. Under the statute there has been no conveyance of the inchoate right of dower of the wives of Gus and Guy Fulk to the appellee.\nThe appellants concede that the contract of purchase called for a warranty deed from the appellants conveying to the appellee a perfect title.\nThe decree is, therefore, correct and is affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "WOOD, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Mehaffy, Donham \u00a3 Mehaffy, for appellants.",
      "Will G. Akers, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Fulk v. Robinson.\nOpinion delivered October 20, 1919.\n1. Married women \u2014 transfer op inchoate right of dower and homestead. \u2014 Prior to the passage of Act 324, p. 241, Acts of 1919, a married woman could not convey her inchoate right of dower and homestead to a stranger by executing a deed to him in which her husb.and did not join.\n2. Same \u2014 same.\u2014The deed of a married woman to a third party, relinquishing dower and homestead only, in which the husband did not join, is invalid under Kirby\u2019s Digest, section 741.\n3. Same \u2014 same.\u2014Under Act No. 324, Acts of 1919, a married woman may relinquish dower and homestead in her husband\u2019s lands, in a deed in which her husband does not join, only where she executes the instrument to her husband\u2019s grantee or to one claiming title under him.\n4. Conveyances \u2014 conformity to statute. \u2014 Where a statute prescribes a method of conveyance, that method m\u00fcst be followed to make the conveyance valid.\nAppeal from Pulaski Cbancery Court; John E. Martineau, Chancellor;\naffirmed.\nMehaffy, Donham \u00a3 Mehaffy, for appellants.\nUnder section 741, Kirby\u2019s Digest, a married woman may relinquish her dower by joining her husband in a deed and acknowledgment, etc. Under this section she could only release her dower by joining her husband in a deed to a third person, but this was amended by act 324, Acts 1919, 241, so as to allow wives to release dower by a separate instrument to her husband\u2019s grantee or anyone claiming title under him, etc., and the court erred in sustaining appellee\u2019s demurrer to appellant\u2019s answer. Under our new law the wives have properly relinquished dower to their husband\u2019s grantee. As this is a new act no authorities are available now.\nWill G. Akers, for appellee.\nAct 234 has no retroactive effect and was passed after the deed was made. The dower did not pass. 13 Ark. 422; 31 Id. 678-681; 67 Id. 15-23. Under these decisions the deed tendered was not sufficient to vest the right of dower of Elizabeth and Willie Fulk."
  },
  "file_name": "0212-01",
  "first_page_order": 238,
  "last_page_order": 240
}