{
  "id": 1481738,
  "name": "Barner v. Handy",
  "name_abbreviation": "Barner v. Handy",
  "decision_date": "1944-10-30",
  "docket_number": "4-7427",
  "first_page": "833",
  "last_page": "838",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "207 Ark. 833"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "183 S.W.2d 49"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "1 S. W. 2d 56",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.W.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "175 Ark. 1170",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "245 S. W. 510",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.W.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "156 Ark. 443",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1358420
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/156/0443-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 588,
    "char_count": 8572,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.51,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 7.036534591092138e-08,
      "percentile": 0.4244726236935049
    },
    "sha256": "fd07078c4c9447ab0d4809c4d695632d7b6134e9a30949263480064e30a094d9",
    "simhash": "1:38cc029326537823",
    "word_count": 1387
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:46:39.394631+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Barner v. Handy."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Griffin Smith, Chief Justice.\nNancy was the wife of Milton Barner. With Milton\u2019s death in 1943 his sister, Josephine Handy, and Nancy, each inherited an undivided half interest in Lot 21 near Sweet Home. The question is whether Chancery Court erred in holding that Josephine\u2019s quitclaim deed to Nancy was procured through fraud, allegation also being that the grantor was without mental capacity to contract.\nIn 1942 A. J. Hoffman was associated with Rodgers, Bruton, and Brown in prospecting for bauxite. They maintained offices in a church building adjoining the Barner lot. Hoffman, who with his associates operated ten drilling rigs, was directed by Bruton to test the church acreage for water. It is claimed by Hoffman that at this time it was not suspected that the land was under-laid with bauxite. Permits had been procured to drill exploratory holes, but in some instances leases had not been taken.\n\u2022Concluding it would be profitable to lease the Barner land, Hof finan discussed the matter with Nancy. She delivered to him the deed under which her husband acquired title; also an abstract. Hoffman was told that Milton Barner died intestate, and that Josephine was his 'sister. However, Nancy volunteered assurance that Josephine would not claim her inheritance, and was willing to sign any necessary papers.\nIn these circumstances Rodgers, Bruton, Brown, and Hoffman took a lease from Nancy May 27,1943, covering all of Lot 21. It was not recorded. Recited consideration was one dollar \u201cand mutual covenants and undertakings.\u201d Royalty payments of fifty cents per ton were reserved to the \u201clessors\u201d \u2014 plural.\nHoffman says that after discovering Josephine\u2019s interest, an attorney was consulted, with the result that a deed from Josephine to Nancy was prepared and placed in Josephine\u2019s hands. Hoffman testified that while this deed remained undelivered (and presumptively unsigned) he talked with Josephine at Nancy\u2019s home and informed her regarding the interest then sought to be procured. Josephine replied that Nancy had worked hard to earn the money used in paying for the property, and \u201c. . . I don\u2019t feel that I should have any part of it.\u201d\nJosephine later signed the deed and then or later received ten dollars advanced by Hoffman, and in turn charged by Hoffman to Nancy\u2019s account. Nancy was given an equal sum. Hoffman took Josephine to a notary public in Little Rock (none being available at Sweet Home) and the transaction was completed June 1,' 194.3.\nIt is conceded by Hoffman that when the deal with Nancy was consummated, he knew that valuable deposits of bauxite were available on Lot 21. So impressed were the prospectors that when Nancy demurred because she had nowhere to go, Hoffman and his associates agreed to advance $2,000' in cash for her use in building a home. Hoffman\u2019s expression concerning the bauxite was, \u201cIt looked very promising. \u201d 4-t trial 'evidence was that royalty interests were worth $15,00\nIn consequence of Josephine\u2019s suit to cancel her quitclaim deed, and for an accounting, (filed in the name of Magnolia Flowers as next friend) the Chancellor found that the plaintiff did not have capacity to comprehend the nature of her transactions with Hoffman and Nancy, and that undue influence had been exerted. There was also a recitation that no consideration was paid.\nThe decree is correct. Though Nancy may not have expressly misrepresented to Josephine essential facts connected with Hoffman\u2019s operations and with potential values, -effect was to acquire a half interest in fifteen thousand dollars\u2019 worth of royalties for l/750th of the admitted worth, exclusive of remainders. It is contrary to business and personal experiences for a competent person to knowingly part with $7,500 for a present payment of ten dollars.\nHoffman testified that, as to the lease, it was of no consequence to him who bestowed the right to take ore. Perhaps not. But it ivas essential that the grantor have a right to convey; and without Josephine\u2019s concurrence there could be no completed deal. Hoffman\u2019s purpose in prompting Nancy to have Josephine quitclaim was not an impersonal gesture.\nIf the argument be that mere inadequacy of consideration \u2014 that is, insufficiency of consideration unaccompanied by any other circumstances \u2014 will not suffice to cancel a. conveyance, equity\u2019s answer is that when the amount paid is incomparable to value \u2014 a disparity so great as to cause reasonable minds to believe that what is claimed as consideration did not attain the dignity of a token \u2014 then we must-apply the rule stated in Pledger v. Birkhead, 156 Ark. 443, 245 S. W. 510, and approved in Sims v. Sims, 175 Ark. 1170, 1 S. W. 2d 56. It was there said, in effect, that while mental weakness short of incapacity to execute the instrument in question may render a person more susceptible in respect of fraudulent designs, and lessen resistance to influence, (though such weakness may not, alone, in a given case, be sufficient to avoid the contract) yet when the impairment is proven, and it is shown that.unfairness, undue influence, great inadequacy of consideration (or any one of these things) operated on the subnormal mentality to produce inequitable results., then courts will give relief.\nAppellants made substantial proof that Josephine was not incompetent. The notary public who took her acknowledgment did not observe any unusual conduct. Her conversation appeared to be that of a rational person. Hoffman was of the same view. He thought she understood his disclosure that bauxite had been found on the land, and that it might be valuable. There was not, from his standpoint, anything unnatural in Josephine\u2019s assertion that Nancy\u2019s money had paid for the property, and that she (Josephine) did not contend for an interest. Other witnesses supported the general trend of testimony relating to rationality.\nOn the other hand there were witnesses \u2014 some white and some black \u2014 who testified to facts showing weak-\nmindedness. It is true that Josephine went about doing the ordinary things a sixty-nine-year-old woman in her circumstances must do; such, for instance, as going to a neighboring store, visiting in the community, discussing trivial matters, etc. There was testimony that for several years she had not been able to work; that her only income was from the State Welfare Department, and that relatives contributed to her maintenance. She was spoken of as \u201cabsentminded and unreasonable.\u201d 'She would go to the store, make small purchases, then leave without taking them with her. She borrowed fifty cents from one friend and thought it had been advanced by another. She purchased a money order from the postmaster, took it home, misplaced it, then insisted it had not been delivered to her. It was found where the purchaser had put it- \u2014 the act having been immediately forgotten. Josephine on more than one occasion got \u201clost\u201d in the immediate neighborhood. When but four blocks from home she became confused and had to be told where she was and how to return to her daughter\u2019s residence.\nHoffman\u2019s testimony in explanation of why, how, and when the payment to Josephine was-made included this statement: \u201c. . . After the notary signed, Nancy wanted to drive down town to one of-the stores. At that time she wanted to know if I would give her sister-in-law ten dollars. I gave her the ten dollars, and also gave Nancy ten dollars. Both payments were charged to Nancy\u2019s account.\u201d\nIf this is a full disclosure and the language be literally construed, there was no consideration for Josephine\u2019s deed. The alleged \u201cconsideration,\u201d according to Appellant Hoffman, was a \u201cgift\u201d \u2014 a gratuity conferred after the deed had been made, and without reference to its execution.\nThis is an appeal where the oft-repeated judicial expression, \u2018 \u2018 on the whole case, \u2019 \u2019 has pertinent application. The \u201cwhole case\u201d consists of separate acts .whereby an inexperienced, illiterate, enfeebled and wholly dependent Negro found herself penniless in the presence of plenty, and the circumstances are such as to show an absence of conscious volition, or understanding.\nNor do we think the Chancellor erred in refusing to hold that when Nancy\u2019s money partially paid for the premises purchased by her husband, a trust arose.\nAffirmed.\nBruton, in response to the question, \u201cWhat is your business?\u201d replied, \u201cContracting and mining.\u201d\nBoth Nancy and Josephine are Negroes,",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Griffin Smith, Chief Justice."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Pat Mehaffy, for appellant.",
      "Baucum Fulkerson and Rose, Loughborough, Dobyns & House, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Barner v. Handy.\n4-7427\n183 S. W. 2d 49\nOpinion delivered October 30, 1944.\nPat Mehaffy, for appellant.\nBaucum Fulkerson and Rose, Loughborough, Dobyns & House, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0833-01",
  "first_page_order": 871,
  "last_page_order": 876
}