{
  "id": 8725077,
  "name": "Schuman v. Schmuck",
  "name_abbreviation": "Schuman v. Schmuck",
  "decision_date": "1949-02-28",
  "docket_number": "4-8768",
  "first_page": "730",
  "last_page": "731",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "214 Ark. 730"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "217 S.W.2d 827"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "152 S. W. 1017",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.W.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "106 Ark. 9",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1345598
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/106/0009-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 189,
    "char_count": 2081,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.532,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.20858436148207868
    },
    "sha256": "93ea2b0804f8d014b261b8ee6f725a30a46cd21b8efbf4a21b8a82540eb6fc2c",
    "simhash": "1:c24b723f4cfce03f",
    "word_count": 355
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:29:26.096089+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Schuman v. Schmuck."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "George Rose Smith, J.\nThe real property involved in this case was owned by.Frederick Sckmuck at the time of his death'in 1925. His widow, Kate Schmuck, occupied it as her homestead until her own death in 1947. The property forfeited to the State for nonpayment of the 1932 taxes. In 1939 appellant Schuman purchased it from the State, and on February 6, 1940,; he conveyed to appellant Kaplan.\nThe appellees, heirs of Frederick Schmuck, brought this action to cancel the State\u2019s deed to Schuman and Schuman\u2019s deed to Kaplan, as clouds on their title. Among other contentions appellees rely on Kate Schmuck\u2019s adverse possession from the date of Schuman\u2019s purchase until her death \u2014 a period of more than seven years \u2014 as defeating any claim of title Kaplan might have. This, issue is determinative of the case. Although Mrs. Schmuck\u2019s possession under her homestead right was not adverse to the heirs\u2019 interest, it was adverse to the appellants and extinguished whatever title they acquired from the State. In Johnson v. Johnson, 106 Ark. 9, 152 S. W. 1017, we held that the widow\u2019s possession by virtue of her dower and homestead rights may be adverse to the title of a third person and inures to the benefit of the heirs. The same principle applies to! possession under the homestead right alone.\nAppellants insist that the running of the statute was interrupted by the filing of an ejectment suit by Schuman against Kate Schmuck on March 21, 1940, the action having been allowed to pend without final hearing until it was abated by Mrs. Schmuck\u2019s death. But a grantee\u2019s right to rely, by privity of contract, upon his grantor\u2019s conduct is limited to instances in which the grantor asserted claim to the same title that passed to the grantee. Here Shuman filed suit in his own name after conveying, to Kaplan by quitclaim deed; so it cannot be said that his complaint amounted to an assertion of the title then vested in Kaplan.\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "George Rose Smith, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Wm. J. Kirby, for appellant.",
      "Heartsill Ragon, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Schuman v. Schmuck.\n4-8768\n217 S. W. 2d 827\nOpinion delivered February 28, 1949.\nWm. J. Kirby, for appellant.\nHeartsill Ragon, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0730-01",
  "first_page_order": 768,
  "last_page_order": 769
}