{
  "id": 1621237,
  "name": "A. F. BAKER, et al v. Clarence L. WESTMORELAND, et ux",
  "name_abbreviation": "Baker v. Westmoreland",
  "decision_date": "1975-05-05",
  "docket_number": "75-5",
  "first_page": "61",
  "last_page": "63",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "258 Ark. 61"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "522 S.W.2d 402"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "250 Ark. 703",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1636815
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1971,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/250/0703-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "233 Ark. 45",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1691594
      ],
      "weight": 3,
      "year": 1961,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/233/0045-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "223 Ark. 10",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1650302
      ],
      "weight": 3,
      "year": 1954,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/223/0010-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 309,
    "char_count": 4295,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.866,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.06116862411669561
    },
    "sha256": "79e7816209906171d7521d4bdd623f9c63d6839f327748a6479890ca0d02e7d4",
    "simhash": "1:afd8ed048428faba",
    "word_count": 737
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:03:57.275817+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "A. F. BAKER, et al v. Clarence L. WESTMORELAND, et ux"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Frank Holt, Justice.\nThis is an action to quiet title. Appellants, the natural children of A. W. Baker, deceased, petitioned the chancellor to declare them the owners of an undivided 6/7ths interest in property owned by their father. The chancellor held that Baker owned this property with his wife as tenants by the entirety. Therefore, upon Baker\u2019s death in 1951 the property went to his wife rather than to Baker\u2019s heirs. Mrs. Baker died in 1966 leaving her son, appellee Westmoreland, as her sole heir. Appellants assert for reversal there is insufficient evidence to support the chancellor\u2019s finding of a tenancy by the entirety.\nThe record reflects that Baker, individually, obtained title to 79 acres of farm land in 1936. In 1946, Baker and his wife, Emma, as joint grantors, conveyed this property by warranty deed to Ernest Mangum. By the granting clause, a vendor\u2019s lien was retained for the unpaid balance evidenced by notes payable to the grantors. Upon default, the granting clause provided \u201cthat the Grantors at their option\u201d could declare the entire debt due. The Mangums defaulted and in 1947 conveyed the property to \u201cA. W. Baker and Emma Baker, Man & Wife, and unto his heirs ***.\u201d The granting clause also contained this significant language. \u201c(The object of this deed is to return title to Grantee herein, without foreclosure for balance of purchase price.)\u201d\nThe only issue is whether the Mangums\u2019 deed conveyed a tenancy by the entirety to the Bakers. Appellant relies upon Harmon v. Thompson, 223 Ark. 10, 263 S.W. 2d 903 (1954). There we held that a grant to \u201cDave Harmon and Gertie Harmon and unto his heirs and assigns forever\u201d did not convey a tenancy by the entirety. The facts in that case, however, are peculiarly different from these in the case at bar. There the word \u201chis\u201d was typed into the printed form deed. This was erased and the word \u201ctheirs\u201d typed in. Then \u201ctheirs\u201d was inked out and the word \u201chis\u201d inserted by writing. We held that this written insertion was deliberate and could not be treated as a mere inadvertence.\nThe later case of Redmon v. Hill, 233 Ark. 45, 342 S.W. 2d 410 (1961), distinguished Harmon v. Thompson, supra. In Redmon the granting clause of the deed conveyed property to Duncan Hill and Emma Hill, and **** unto his heirs and assigns ****.\u201d There we said:\nIn two important respects the facts in the Harmon case are easily distinguishable from the facts in the case under consideration. One, in the cited case it is clear, because of the erasures and changes, that the word \u201chis\u201d was deliberately and purposely used instead of the word \u201ctheir.\u201d Such is not the case here. Two, in the cited case the all important fact of intent is not definitely shown, as it is in this case.\nIn Redmon v. Hill, supra, there was testimony that Hill asked that the deed be made to him and his wife. Likewise, in the case at bar, Mrs. Mangum\u2019s uncontradicted testimony is that the deed was made according to Baker\u2019s direction. There is no indication that the use of the word \u201chis\u201d was purposely and deliberately done to alter the intent in the deed. Additionally, the conveyance here from the Mangums to the Bakers, as grantees, includes the phrase \u201cMan and Wife.\u201d Further, the reconveyance was specifically noted as being for the purpose of cancellation of their notes to Baker and his wife, Emma, when they jointly conveyed the property to the Mangums. Although the Mangum deed recites the purpose of the conveyance \u201cis to return title to grantee herein\u201d that does not negate the fact that the \u201cgrantee\u201d in the singular could include Baker and his wife since both were the grantors in their deed to the Mangums. We hold that Redmon is applicable and controlling in the case at bar.\nNeither do we consider Baker\u2019s 1936 unprobated will nor who paid the taxes on the property as being of any significance in determining the pivotal issue before us, which is the construction of the reconveyance by the Mangum deed. The chancellor\u2019s interpretation is in accord with our well established rule of property. Mills Heirs v. Wylie, 250 Ark. 703, 466 S.W. 2d 937 (1971).\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Frank Holt, Justice."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "(lamer, (lamer & Cloar, for appellants.",
      "Carneal Warfield, for appellees."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "A. F. BAKER, et al v. Clarence L. WESTMORELAND, et ux\n75-5\n522 S.W. 2d 402\nOpinion delivered May 5, 1975\n(lamer, (lamer & Cloar, for appellants.\nCarneal Warfield, for appellees."
  },
  "file_name": "0061-01",
  "first_page_order": 85,
  "last_page_order": 87
}