{ "id": 1446955, "name": "Brandon v. Bryeans", "name_abbreviation": "Brandon v. Bryeans", "decision_date": "1942-03-30", "docket_number": "4-6684", "first_page": "1117", "last_page": "1121", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "203 Ark. 1117" }, { "type": "parallel", "cite": "160 S.W.2d 205" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ark.", "id": 8808, "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 34, "name_long": "Arkansas", "name": "Ark." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "7 A. L. R. 553", "category": "reporters:specialty", "reporter": "A.L.R.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "206 S. W. 55", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "136 Ark. 72", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1569925 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/136/0072-01" ] }, { "cite": "45 Ark. 392", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1892030 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/45/0392-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 402, "char_count": 6911, "ocr_confidence": 0.501, "pagerank": { "raw": 2.3864827705956397e-07, "percentile": 0.7973513127599331 }, "sha256": "252b166cbedcc7ac7933f91e2866067e919992710558d469458c97c3ed4d3594", "simhash": "1:bbb7600c4d6d65c0", "word_count": 1187 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T23:00:45.785345+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "Brandon v. Bryeans." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Holt, J.\nApril 22, 1926, Ed F. Bryeans executed a warranty deed by which he conveyed to his wife, Mattie Bryeans, the following property in the city of Blytheville, Mississippi county, Arkansas: \u201cLots 4 and 5, block 29, Blythe Addition to the city of Blytheville, Arkansas, and lot 16 and the east half of lot 15 in block one of the Bark Addition to the city of Blytheville, Arkansas. \u2019 \u2019 The deed was recorded on the date of its execution.\u2019\nApril 28, 1926, Bryeans was adjudged insane and on the following day committed to the State Hospital, where he remained until August 26, 1926. On the latter date he was paroled to his wife, Mattie Bryeans, discharged and returned to Blytheville, where he remained until August 29, 1929, when he was again committed to the State Hospital and confined until the 18th day of October, 1929, when he died intestate, leaving surviving-his widow, Mattie Bryeans, and the thirty-six appellees here; his collateral heirs. He left no children surviving.\nFrom the date of the execution of the deed to Mattie Bryeans, she took possession of, controlled, managed, improved, paid all taxes and insurance and treated the property herein as her own until her death, October 4,1940.\nFollowing the death of Ed Bryeans, Mattie Bryeans qualified as administratrix of his estate and on November 3, 1931, filed in the Mississippi probate court her final report in which she stated that her husband, Ed F. Bryeans, had no real j)roperty at the time of liis death except an equity in a certain farm (not involved here); that there was no property out of which she might claim dower, widow\u2019s allowances; or compensation as administratrix, and prayed that she be discharged. On March 26, 1932, the probate court approved the report, as filed on November 3,1931, and Mattie Bryeans was discharged as administratrix. No exceptions have been filed by anyone to this report of the administratrix.\nMattie Bryeans died testate October 4, 1940, and by her will devised the property involved here to her sister, Macie E. Brandon, appellant. The present suit was filed by appellees, all of whom are adults except Thurman Slieals, a grand-nephew, who is a minor.\nAppellees alleged in their complaint that the warranty deed which Ed F. Bryeans executed and whereby he conveyed the property in question to his wife, Mattie Bryeans, was void for the reason that at the time of its. execution the grantor, Ed F. Bryeans, was insane and incapable of making the deed; and that subsequent to its execution and until his death he continued insane and incapable of ratifying the deed in question.\nThey further alleged that Bryeans executed the deed through the undue influence and coercion of Mattie Bryeans, his wife, and it was without consideration; that Mattie Bryeans controlled, managed and enjoyed the income from the property until her death. They prayed that the deed in question executed April 22, 1926, by Bryeans to his Avife, Mattie, be canceled and set aside and that appellees be adjudged the owners and given the possession of the property and that a receiA^er be appointed.\nAppellant interposed the folloAAdng defenses: (1) that Ed F. Bryeans was not insane Avhen the deed Avas executed and that said deed is valid; (2) that he ratified the deed in question subsequent to its execution after he had regained his sanity; (3) that all of the appellees are barred by the statute of limitation and laches.\nUpon a trial the court found the issues in favor of appellees and entered a decree accordingly. This appeal followed.\nThe testimony in this case is quite voluminous. Most of it goes to the question whether Ed F. Bryeans was insane when he executed the deed in question conveying the property to his wife and whether he ratified the deed subsequent to its execution. The evidence as to whether Bryeans was insane when he executed the deed is in irreconcilable conflict, however, appellant frankly concedes here that the chancellor\u2019s finding on this issue cannot be said to be against the preponderance of the testimony, and in this view we concur.\nIt does not follow, however, that even though Bryeans was insane when he executed the deed he could not subsequently ratify his act, and in fact, after a careful consideration of all the testimony as reflected by the record, we think the preponderance of the evidence supports appellant\u2019s contention that Bryeans did by his acts, and at times when he was sane, subsequent to the execution of the deed, ratify same, thereby validating said deed, and the cause must be reversed on this ground.\nThere is a second reason why appellees cannot prevail. The deed whereby -Ed F. Bryeans conveyed the property in question to his wife, was executed April 22, 1926, more than fourteen years before the filing of this suit by appellees. It was recorded with the recorder of Mississippi county on the same day of its execution, and from the date of its recording, Mattie Bryeans\u2019 possession became adverse.\nThe rule is well settled in this state that the deed of an insane person is voidable and not void. Unless appropriate action be taken in apt time to avoid such deed, it continues prima facie valid. In Langley v. Langley, 45 Ark. 392, this court said: \u201cNow the deed or contract of a lunatic is not absolutely void.\u201d\nAnd in Eagle v. Peterson, 136 Ark. 72, 206 S. W. 55, 7 A. L. R. 553, it is said: \u201cUnder tlie doctrine that conveyances of insane persons are voidable and not void, it is obvious that such instruments are subject to ratification as well as disaffirmance, and that the insane person may, when restored to sanity, ratify or confirm the conveyance which he made while insane.\u201d\nUnder the terms of the deed here, Ed F. Bryeans conveyed to his wife, by warranty deed, fee simple title to the whole of the property in question. No attempt was made by appellees, or anyone, to avoid or set aside this deed until more'than fourteen years subsequent to its execution, and more than eleven years after Ed F. Bryeans \u2019 death.\nEven if it should be conceded that the statute of limitation began to run, not from the date of the execution of the deed, April 22, 1926, but on October 18, 1929, the date of Ed F. Bryeans\u2019 death, still appellees are faced with the fact that more than eleven years have elapsed from the death of Bryeans until the filing of this suit, December 12, 1940. During all the time from the date the deed was executed, April 22,1926, until Mrs. Bryeans \u2019 death, October 4, 1940, her possession of the property was adverse, and the statutory bar of seven years (Pope\u2019s Digest, \u00a7 8918) defeats any claims of appellees to the property involved here.\nAccordingly, the decree is reversed, and the cause remanded with directions to dismiss appellees\u2019 complaint for want of equity.", "type": "majority", "author": "Holt, J." } ], "attorneys": [ "Reid & Evrard, for appellant.", "Claude F. Cooper and T. J. Crowder, for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "Brandon v. Bryeans.\n4-6684\n160 S. W. 2d 205\nOpinion delivered March 30, 1942.\nReid & Evrard, for appellant.\nClaude F. Cooper and T. J. Crowder, for appellee." }, "file_name": "1117-01", "first_page_order": 1135, "last_page_order": 1139 }