{
  "id": 1612009,
  "name": "Bright v. Perkins",
  "name_abbreviation": "Bright v. Perkins",
  "decision_date": "1951-04-30",
  "docket_number": "4-9483",
  "first_page": "856",
  "last_page": "860",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "218 Ark. 856"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "239 S.W.2d 281"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "217 Ark. 198",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        8718507
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/217/0198-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 464,
    "char_count": 7615,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.498,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 5.298132930532853e-08,
      "percentile": 0.3325292323992634
    },
    "sha256": "0191f7829542b87cab9ea65b6a354ffebc37ad8389321835898b87a3c1066cb1",
    "simhash": "1:4927d3092c59bff3",
    "word_count": 1333
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:20:49.049805+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Bright v. Perkins."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Grieein Smith, Chief Justice.\nCharles Bright sought reformation of a deed he delivered to W. A. Whistle and has appealed from an order dismissing the complaint allegation that grantor and grantee were mutually mistaken regarding the boundary of Lot 7.\nBright acquired Lot 6 in 1921, and in 1937 he bought Lots 7, 8, and 9. He sold the last three to Whistle February 11, 1939. That same day Whistle conveyed to Bright \u201cAll [land] adjacent to the northeast corner of Lot 7 and south of the south line of Lot 6, . . . being accretion lands consisting of 200 feet north and south along the southeast line of said Lot 7 and running back to water\u2019s edge, same being a mound of land adjacent to Lot 7.\u201d Bright did not have this deed recorded until August 12, 1941.\nBright contends that when the conveyance was made he owned the area now contended for, with accretions to the lots along the meander line of Big Lake, but when the deeds were executed true lines had not been established. He had a ditch dug along the west side of Big-Lake just south of the highway. Another ditch, was dug from the lake toward the highway, and in each undertaking- dirt was used to form a mound, the design being to create high ground for use during overflow periods. This second 200-ft. ditch, running in a general north-south direction, was thought by appellant to be the eastern boundary of Lot 7, and the excavated dirt was dumped onto the accretion lands to the east.\nLot 6 is still owned by appellant. A surveyor\u2019s rough drawing shows that the area of contest is a part of Lot 7, embracing 1.62 acres south of Lot 6. The northeast corner of Lot 7 is the section line, and the disputed land is marked on this chart (introduced by appellant) as Lot 7.\nOn August 11,1939, Whistle conveyed to A. J. Lewis. The deed calls for Lots 7, 8, and 9, and the acreage is 79.69, more or less. In December, 1947, Lewis conveyed to Perkins 360 acres, \u201c. . . together with all accretion lands adjacent to the northeast corner of Lot 7 and south of the line of Lot 6, . . . being accretion lands' consisting of 200 feet north and south along the southeast line of Lot 7 and running southwest to water\u2019s edge. \u2019 \u2019\nLewis occupied the mound through his tenant, Ernest Wilson. The complaint alleges Lewis knew when he purchased that the mound \u201c along the water\u2019s edge of Big Lake\u201d was not included. Because of the encroachment by Lewis, Bright brought an action in ejectment, resulting in a plaintiff\u2019s judgment (January 22, 1945) for \u201cA tract of land lying adjacent to the northeast corner of Lot 7 and south of the south line of Lot 6, . . . being accretion land consisting of 200 feet north and south along the southeast line of Lot 7 and running southeast to water\u2019s edge, same being a mound of land adjacent to Lot No. 7.\u201d\nA writ of possession was placed in the sheriff\u2019s hands in June, 1949. That officer\u2019s return is a certification that the property could not be located with sufficient definiteness to sustain service, hence the court\u2019s directions were asked. It was then that appellant sought equitable relief.\nWhistle died before the reformation suit was brought. Lewis, in addition to other defenses, pleaded estoppel when Perkins cross-complained. Other pleas, including an answer by the administrator of Whistle\u2019s estate, were filed.\nThe diagram discussed by appellant in his brief shows clearly that a line running due south from the northeast corner of Lot 7 would leave a triangle of land, or land and water, east and southeast of the mound contended for. Appellees say the accretions conveyed in Whistle\u2019s deed are to be found there.\nAppellant testified that the mound was formed from ditch cuttings and could not possibly be as far east as appellees say it is. However, the size of the elevated ground is not shown. But the line from the northeast corner of Lot 7 southwesterly, as disclosed by appellant\u2019s exhibit, extends 390 feet to an indicated point and does not correspond with the 200-ft. description. Taking the admitted northeast corner of Lot 7 as a starting point, the diagram projects a line west 475 feet, thence south with a slight westward variation 200 feet, east with a southern variation 175 feet, thence northeastward 390 feet to the starting point. If appellant\u2019s contentions are maintainable the 200-ft. north-south accretion area \u201calong the southeast line of said Lot 7\u201d would begin 475 feet west of the admitted northeast corner. There is an express deed reference to the \u201cmound of land,\u201d but it is placed \u201cadjacent to Lot 7.\u201d Appellant says that he once had possession of the mound and used it.\nConceding such original possession, the difficulty is that appellant sold all of Lot 7 to Whistle, then took back Whistle\u2019s quitclaim deed containing the description now assailed, and he would reform it ten years later because of mutual mistakes, and subsequent to the grantor\u2019s death.\nOne of appellant\u2019s contentions is that an innocent purchaser is not involved because, before buying the lot from Lewis, Perkins knew of the adverse claim. The evidence shows that before the Lewis-Perldns deed was delivered a contract of purchase was executed and earnest money paid. This occurred before Bright notified Perkins that the mound was his. He did not discuss the matter with Perkins, but sent word by another. It was not shown that the message was delivered. Aside from Perkins\u2019 pleading in which it is asserted that he did not have notice of Bright\u2019s claim, both Lewis and Perkins take the position that as between Bright'and Lewis the rights of each became fixed when judgment in the ejectment suit was rendered. Bright did not record his deed from Whistle until two years after Whistle sold to Lewis.\nDuring trial it was stated by counsel for appellant that when the quitclaim deed was made \u201cIt was not thought that this mound was any part of Lot 7.\u201d\nWhen appellant sought ejectment he knew as much about the land conveyed by Whistle by the quitclaim deed as lie did when the present action was instituted. He knew, of course, that he should have 200 feet of accretions along\u2019 the southeast line of Lot 7, running to water\u2019s edge. This is all he is entitled to, for there was no appeal from the circuit court judgment.\nAt the close of appellant\u2019s testimony the defendants asked for a decree of dismissal. The motion was argued without a request that the defendant be required to overcome the prima facie ease appellant had made on issues other than laches. The provisions of Act 470 of 1949, Ark. Stat\u2019s, \u00a7 27-1729, (see Werbe v. Holt, 217 Ark. 198, 229 S. W. 2d 225) are not invoked; and unless we hold as a matter of law that the plaintiff (whose prayer on appeal is that the decree be reversed with judgment here for reformation of the deed) could not treat testimony introduced in his behalf as sufficient, and on the strength of it ask for the relief sought, the statute in its application to this case is not before us.\nWe are unwjtlling to say that Act 470 deprives a litigant of the right to regard his case as having been developed and that he cannot, on the strength of his own testimony, ask for a decree when the issues are argued on their merits.\nAffirmed.\nThe deed description is Lot 7, north half southeast quarter, Lot 8, north half southwest quarter, and Lot 9, south half of south half, all in section 9, township 14 north, range 9 east, containing 79.69 acres, more or less.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Grieein Smith, Chief Justice."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Frank C. Douglas, for appellant.",
      "Marcus Evrard, James M. Gardner, Reid \u00e9 Boy and Elsijane Trimble Boy, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Bright v. Perkins.\n4-9483\n239 S. W. 2d 281\nOpinion delivered April 30, 1951.\nRehearing denied June 4, 1951.\nFrank C. Douglas, for appellant.\nMarcus Evrard, James M. Gardner, Reid \u00e9 Boy and Elsijane Trimble Boy, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0856-01",
  "first_page_order": 880,
  "last_page_order": 884
}