{ "id": 8721117, "name": "Cheek v. Royston", "name_abbreviation": "Cheek v. Royston", "decision_date": "1949-01-10", "docket_number": "4-8642", "first_page": "364", "last_page": "367", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "214 Ark. 364" }, { "type": "parallel", "cite": "216 S.W.2d 866" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ark.", "id": 8808, "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 34, "name_long": "Arkansas", "name": "Ark." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "207 Ark. 495", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1481726 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/207/0495-01" ] }, { "cite": "201 Ark. 809", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 8724598 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/201/0809-01" ] }, { "cite": "206 Ark. 445", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1485116 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/206/0445-01" ] }, { "cite": "88 S. W. 903", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.", "opinion_index": 1 }, { "cite": "76 Ark. 169", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1500990 ], "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/76/0169-01" ] }, { "cite": "22 Ark. 453", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 8727078 ], "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/22/0453-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 489, "char_count": 6746, "ocr_confidence": 0.497, "pagerank": { "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08, "percentile": 0.20852837366193935 }, "sha256": "c98e1ec206cdaf7910b99332f1587ae50ae2ce43561f50419a0c9f5a2d23f91f", "simhash": "1:3c2799ad5b83be58", "word_count": 1074 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:29:26.096089+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Mr. Justice George Bose Smith dissents." ], "parties": [ "Cheek v. Royston." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "GeieeiN Smith, Chief Justice.\nRelying on continuous payment of taxes under color of title and adverse possession for more than seven years, Royston alleged in his suit to quiet title that Mary Etta Cheek claimed an unknown interest in an unoccupied lot.\nThe intervention and cross-complaint of Edna Edwards as guardian admitted there was no actual adverse occupant, but charged forcible ejectment. The lot had formerly belonged to Will Cheek, Mary Etta\u2019s father, who died in possession, presumptively intestate. After Will\u2019s death Mary Etta obtained a warranty deed to a sister\u2019s interest and was an occupant until dispossessed by Royston in 1945. It was also charged that Royston caused removal of a house valued at $1,000.\nIn accounting for failure to pay taxes the guardian set out that Mary Etta became mentally incompetent in 1928 or 1929, and was later admitted to State Hospital.\nTitle transactions affecting the lot show forfeiture for 1930 general taxes and certification to the State, with confirmation in 1935. Searcy Street Improvement District 13 had foreclosed on two occasions. Royston purchased these titles.\n' From a decree dismissing the intervention and cross-complaint for want of equity, and confirming Royston\u2019s title, the guardian has appealed.\nIn the absence of express decretal findings it is not clear whether want of equity rests upon a determination that appellant\u2019s ward was insane, or whether the interest contended for was not established by appropriate evidence, hence we do not consider applicability of Act 329 of 1939 and construction given its retroactive provision. Watson v. Anderson, 201 Ark. 809, 147 S. W. 2d 28; nor do we decide whether the intervention was direct in its nature or a collateral attack. By Sec. 7316 of Pope\u2019s Digest, insane persons have three years after recovery to appear and \u201cexcept\u201d to proceedings. We express no opinion regarding the right of appellant\u2019s ward to question legality of the District foreclosures .\nAppellant argues a single point: Mary was insane when her property rights became impaired, and has continued so. Appellee injects a second issue: that irrespective of insanity, paramount title in Mary Etta was not shown, hence an incorrect determination of competency would be of no advantage to the intervener.\nAlthough appellant\u2019s ward had on two occasions been admitted to State Hospital, an adjudication of insanity was not shown. But in the circumstances here, with affirmative evidence by numerous witnesses and hospitalization any presumption arising because there were no Court orders was of a negative nature and would not control the Chancellor\u2019s action. Schuman v. Westbrook, 207 Ark. 495, 181 S. W. 2d 470. An examination of this case, and comparison with testimony presented by the guardian for Mary Etta, show that the quantum of evidence here supporting the guardian\u2019s assertion of incompetency was at least equal to that offered in behalf of Anna Laurie Westbrook.\nThe factual balance is further tipped when consideration is given the deposition of Dr. Gr. W. Jackson, State Hospital Superintendent, claimed by appellee to have been inadmissible. Dr. Jackson did not have personal knowledge of Mary Etta, and his answers to interrogatories and cross-interrogatories were from Hospital records. The full record was not offered in evidence.\nCounsel for appellee think the Superintendent testified as an expert without having qualified as such. Conceding that in certain aspects replies were conclusions drawn from medical knowledge of mental diseases, there remains the undisputed fact that the record, as distinguished from conclusions, accounts for essential information. The patient was suffering from dementia prae-cox, paranoid type. To the extent that Dr. Jackson testified to these factual indorsements, the evidence was competent. Act 238 of 1921, Pope\u2019s Digest, Sec. 5143, 3 Ark. Stats. (1947), \u00a7 28-907. Certified copies of the entire record \u201cor any excerpts\u201d may he used. Appellant was entitled to show the Hospital determination of insanity, and this, when taken into account supplementing other testimony, preponderates in favor of the guardian\u2019s plea of incompetency.\nWe must therefore reverse the decree and remand the cause for proceedings under which the incompetent intervener may undertake to establish any rights she may have, within the issues.\nMr. Justice George Bose Smith dissents.\nAppellee Boyston\u2019s cross-interrogatory to the deposition of Dr. Jackson shows this question: \u201cIf you state the record of said'Hospital shows that Mary Etta Cheek was examined during the years 1933, 1934, and 1938, state whether or not you made such examination or examinations and the record or records thereof, and if you did not, then state who made them: whether in your presence or under your supervision.\u201d Answering that the examinations were not made by him or under his supervision, Dr. Jackson in effect said that the information he gave was from the record. Answering negatively in one instance, Dr. Jackson said, \u201cThe record does not show.\u201d (Members of State Hospital Board, whose duty it is to require maintenance of the records, must take the constitutional oath of office. Act 240 of 1933. See Amendment No. 33 to the Constitution for matters relating to terms of Board members, tenure of office, etc.)", "type": "majority", "author": "GeieeiN Smith, Chief Justice." }, { "text": "George Bose Smith, J.,\ndissenting. The majority opinion relies on Schuman v. Westbrook, hut there the evidence of insanity was uncontradicted. Here the lay testimony'is so evenly balanced that the medical evidence given by Dr. Jackson becomes the pivotal factor. If his testimony were admissible I should agree to reversal, but I think the chancellor properly refused to consider it.\nThe only effect of Ark. Stats. (1947), \u00a7 28-907 is to permit the introduction of certified copies of public records or excerpts \u201cwith like effect as the originals thereof.\u201d Here no certified copy of the record was offered. Dr. Jackson testified on the basis of the hospital records, but he does not even purport to quote their exact language. His evidence is in his own words and amounts to no more than Ms interpretation of the substance of these records. We have consistently held such testimony inadmissible, requiring that the record itself or a certified copy be offered: Halliburton v. Fletcher, 22 Ark. 453; State v. Songer, 76 Ark. 169, 88 S. W. 903; Bridwell v. Davis, 206 Ark. 445, 175 S. W. 2d 992. I can see no practical reason for extending the scope of the established rule, and I deeply regret any pronouncement which tends to unsettle the Arkansas law by disregarding existing precedents.", "type": "dissent", "author": "George Bose Smith, J.," } ], "attorneys": [ "Gordon Armitage, for appellant.", "Tingling & Yingling, for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "Cheek v. Royston.\n4-8642\n216 S. W. 2d 866\nOpinion delivered January 10, 1949.\nGordon Armitage, for appellant.\nTingling & Yingling, for appellee." }, "file_name": "0364-01", "first_page_order": 402, "last_page_order": 405 }