{
  "id": 1627325,
  "name": "William J. BOLTON, Adm'r. et al v. Eula Armstrong SMITH",
  "name_abbreviation": "Bolton v. Smith",
  "decision_date": "1972-10-09",
  "docket_number": "5-6026",
  "first_page": "191",
  "last_page": "193",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "253 Ark. 191"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "485 S.W.2d 224"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "228 S.W. 424",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.W.",
      "year": 1921,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "190 Ky. 723",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ky.",
      "case_ids": [
        4526023
      ],
      "year": 1921,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ky/190/0723-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "3 Ohio 211",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ohio",
      "case_ids": [
        211481
      ],
      "year": 1827,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ohio/3/0197-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "16 Idaho 59",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Idaho",
      "case_ids": [
        3320651
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/idaho/16/0059-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "277 S.W. 533",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.W.",
      "year": 1925,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "169 Ark. 1008",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1373912
      ],
      "year": 1925,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/169/1008-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 242,
    "char_count": 2747,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.786,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.061400104793754386
    },
    "sha256": "51cf0ca093e533f7e778dfe6d10d59e8a142be05b2d854b3c3fa65ad8b528557",
    "simhash": "1:254c510d18382128",
    "word_count": 459
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T14:44:30.788798+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "William J. BOLTON, Adm\u2019r. et al v. Eula Armstrong SMITH"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Conley Byrd, Justice.\nThis action arises out of an ante-nuptial agreement between Dessie Hamilton and Leonard Hamilton before their marriage in 1947. Pursuant to that agreement Leonard conveyed to Dessie a lot on Lake Hamilton which was erroneously described as Lot 9 of Block E, Point Lookout Subdivision. Dessie died in 1957 without issue and by her will devised Leonard a life estate in the Lake Hamilton lot with the remainder to her sister Eula Armstrong Smith. While Leonard was in possession of the lot, as life tenant, he discovered that the \u201cLot 9\u201d description was erroneous. In January, 1969, he conveyed the Lot by its proper description \u201cLot 7\u201d to his son and daughter-in-law, William and Delores Bolton. After Leonard\u2019s death and the discovery of the 1969 conveyance, Eula Armstrong Smith brought this action against William and Delores Bolton and Leonard\u2019s estate to have the 1969 conveyance set aside or in the alternative for damages. The Chancellor found that William and Delores were bona fide purchasers for value and because of the recording statute took superior title. However, he assessed the damages on the basis of the present market value of the property plus reasonable attorney\u2019s fees. Leonard\u2019s estate has appealed contending that under our decisions, such as O\u2019Bar v. Hight, 169 Ark. 1008, 277 S.W. 533 (1925), the only damages recoverable for a breach of warranty is the consideration paid. We agree with the Chancellor.\nThe Chancellor in ruling against Leonard\u2019s estate relied upon an exception to the rule set out in O\u2019Bar v. Hight, supra. The exception as stated in Madden v. Caldwell Land Co., 16 Idaho 59, 100 P. 358, see also 20 Am. Jur. 2d p. 692, is to the effect that a vendor, after conveying good title, who subsequently conveys to another, who takes superior title by first recording his deed, stands in the same position of a vendor who breaches his contract and refuses to convey. Another similar exception to the rule stated by appellant is where the vendor has practiced a fraud. See Backus v. McCoy, 3 Ohio 211 (1827), Sellards v. Adams, 190 Ky. 723, 228 S.W. 424 (1921), and 20 Am. Jur. 2d Covenants, Conditions, etc. \u00a7 142. Under either exception, the Chancellor correctly assessed the damages at the market value.\nEula has cross-appealed from the Chancellor\u2019s finding that William and Delores were bona fide purchasers for value. On the record, as abstracted, we cannot say that the Chancellor\u2019s finding is contrary to a preponderance of the evidence.\nAffirmed with all costs to be assessed against Leonard\u2019s estate.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Conley Byrd, Justice."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Roy H. Mitchell, for appellants.",
      "Michael B. Heindl, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "William J. BOLTON, Adm\u2019r. et al v. Eula Armstrong SMITH\n5-6026\n485 S.W. 2d 224\nOpinion delivered October 9, 1972\nRoy H. Mitchell, for appellants.\nMichael B. Heindl, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0191-01",
  "first_page_order": 215,
  "last_page_order": 217
}