{ "id": 1519136, "name": "Sledge & Norfleet Company v. Craig", "name_abbreviation": "Sledge & Norfleet Co. v. Craig", "decision_date": "1908-09-28", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "371", "last_page": "373", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "87 Ark. 371" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ark.", "id": 8808, "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 34, "name_long": "Arkansas", "name": "Ark." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "79 Wis. 147", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Wis.", "case_ids": [ 8703051 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/wis/79/0147-01" ] }, { "cite": "77 Ark. 57", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1499063 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/77/0057-01" ] }, { "cite": "75 Ark. 139", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1502449 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/75/0139-01" ] }, { "cite": "66 Ark. 226", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1909789 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/66/0226-01" ] }, { "cite": "64 Ark. 492", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1907372 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/64/0492-01" ] }, { "cite": "60 Ark. 269", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1903659 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/60/0269-01" ] }, { "cite": "62 Ark. 431", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1905682 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/62/0431-01" ] }, { "cite": "57 Ark. 242", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1324593 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/57/0242-01" ] }, { "cite": "51 Ark. 419", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 8723665 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/51/0419-01" ] }, { "cite": "50 Ark. 294", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 8722036 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/50/0294-01" ] }, { "cite": "44 Ark. 365", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1893394 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/44/0365-01" ] }, { "cite": "58 Ark. 117", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1329128 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/58/0117-01" ] }, { "cite": "57 Ark. 247", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0 } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 395, "char_count": 6923, "ocr_confidence": 0.67, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.7862956451407378e-07, "percentile": 0.7142539970477043 }, "sha256": "ee83721aac83ed61fc2e1b08514b51a70b2753b6b847e8bf00866af610e394b6", "simhash": "1:3b3e50769261e855", "word_count": 1162 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:24:32.952897+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "Sledge & Norfleet Company v. Craig." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "McCulloci-i, J.\nDuring the month of March, 1900, Craig, Coston and Duffing, who were farmers residing in Crittenden County, Arkansas, jointly executed to Sledge & Norfleet Company of Memphis, Terinessee, a mortgage on certain crops, livestock, etc., and a forty-acre tract of land in that county which was owned by Craig and constituted his homestead. The tract is imperfectly described, but it is admitted in the pleadings that it was the intention of the parties to describe and convey the tract in controversy. This is a suit in chancery instituted by appellant, Sledge & Norfleet Company, to have the mortgage reformed so as to correctly describe the land intended to be conveyed, and to foreclose the mortgage. The chancellor refused to decree a foreclosure on the ground that Craig\u2019s wife did not properly join in the execution of the deed and acknowledge the same.\nWe find, however, from an inspection of the deed, which is copied in the transcript, that she did join in the execution and acknowledge the same before an officer authorized by law to take acknowledgments. It is true that her name is not mentioned in the granting clause of the deed along with the names of the other grantors, nor in any part of the deed, but the deed concludes with the statement that \u201cthe parties of the first part have hereto set their hands and seals,\u201d etc., and her name appears subscribed thereto with the names of the other grantors. The deed con-_ tains no clause relinquishing the wife\u2019s dower, and in order to give effect to her signature it must be construed to evidence an intention to join in the grant. Pipkin v. Williams, 57 Ark. 247.\n\u25a0 The statute proyides that \u201cno conveyance, mortgage or other instrument affecting the homestead of any married man shall be of any validity * * * unless his wife joins in the execution of such instrument and acknowledges the same.\u201d Kirby\u2019s Digest, \u00a7 3901.\nThis statute prescribes no particular form of acknowledgment, and the court has held that the use of no particular form or words is essential in order to comply therewith, but that it is sufficient if the wife joins in the execution of a deed and acknowledges the same before an officer authorized by law to certify acknowledgments \u2014 these being the substantive acts required by the statute in order to give validity to a conveyance of the homestead. Pipkin v. Williams, supra. The officer\u2019s certificate to the deed involved in this case does not conform to the general statute prescribing the form of acknowledgments to deeds, but it does show that the wife acknowledged before the certifying officer that she executed the deed. This is all that is required by the statute directed especially to the wife\u2019s execution of a conveyance of the homestead.\nBut, if we should hold that the certificate of acknowledgment is defective, the defect 'has been cured by a subsequent statute. Act March 20, 1903, Kirby\u2019s Digest, \u00a7 786.\n. It is urged, however, that the curative statute has no application because the homestead was not correctly described in the. deed. Appellees admitted in their pleadings the existence of facts, which justify a reformation of the instrument so as to make it correctly describe the land, hence the cured defect, in the certificate of acknowledgment, if a defect existed, presented no obstacle in the way of reformation of the inaccurate description. The right to a reformation of the instrument rests upon established principles of equity, and when the defective certificate of acknowledgment was cured by the statute these principles came into operation as if no defect had ever existed.\nThe pleadings also present the issue whether or not the mortgage lien on Craig\u2019s homestead was confined to his separate indebtedness to appellant. The chancellor found that the indebtedness of all the mortgagors was joint and amounted to the sum of $854.21 at the time of the rendition of the decree.\nWe think the conclusion of the chancellor in this respect was correct, and that part of the decree is approved.\nThe decree is therefore reversed, and the cause is remanded with directions to enter a decree foreclosing the mortgage on the land described in the .complaint.", "type": "majority", "author": "McCulloci-i, J." } ], "attorneys": [ "Rose, Hemingway,\u2019 Cantrell & Loughborough, for appellant.", "L. P. Berry and A. B. Shafer, for appellees." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "Sledge & Norfleet Company v. Craig.\nOpinion delivered September 28, 1908.\n1. Homestead \u2014 conveyance by married man \u2014 joinder by wipe. \u2014 Under Kirby\u2019s Digest, \u00a7 3901, providing that no conveyance affecting the homestead of any married man shall be of any validity \u201cunless his wife joins in the execution of such instrument and acknowledges the same,\u201d a mortgage of a married man\u2019s homestead, containing no relinquishment of dower, is valid when signed and acknowledged by his wife, though her name is not mentioned in the granting clause. (Page 372. )\n2. Same \u2014 form op wife\u2019s joinder in husband\u2019s deed. \u2014 Kirby\u2019s Digest, \u00a7 3901, providing that no conveyance affecting the homestead of a married man shall be valid \u201cunless his wife joins in the execution of said instrument and acknowledges the same,\u201d does not require the use of any particular form or words in such execution or acknowledgment. (Page 373.)\n3. Reformation- \u2014 vjhen decreed.- \u2014 A court of equity will not, in a proper case, decline to reform an instrument which defectively describes the land intended to be conveyed because it also contains a defective acknowledgment which has been cured by statute. (Page 373.)\nAppeal from Crittenden Chancery Court; Edward D. Robertson, -Chancellor;\nreversed.\nRose, Hemingway,\u2019 Cantrell & Loughborough, for appellant.\nIt is conceded that the deed would be invalid under the Acts 1887, Kirby\u2019s Digest, \u00a7 3901, unless cured by subsequent acc of the Legislature. The curative act of 1903, Kirby\u2019s Digest, \u00a7 \u00a7 783, 786, is sufficient for this purpose, and the deed conveys the homestead, the same not having been invalidated by any judicial proceeding, nor any suit instituted for that purpose, at the time the statute was enacted. 58 Ark. 117; 44 Ark. 365; 50 Ark. 294; S3 Ark. 57; 51 Ark. 419 ; 57 Ark. 242; 62 Ark. 431; Id. 160; Id. 320; Id. 338; 60 Ark. 269; 64 Ark. 492; 66 Ark. 226; Id. 4551 7\u00b0 Ark. 166; 75 Ark. 139; 77 Ark. 57.\nL. P. Berry and A. B. Shafer, for appellees.\n1. Courts of equity will not, under the guise of reformation, abrogate positive statutory enactments. Under our law there is no method whereby the homestead may be conveyed, except as provided by the statute, Kirby\u2019s Digest, \u00a7 3901. In this case the wife does not join in the granting clause of the instrument, and the acknowledgment is defective. The instrument does not fall within the terms of the curative act. 79 Wis. 147.\n2. The equities in favor of appellees were sufficient to defeat reformation. Unless it clearly appears that the minds of the parties met on the terms of the agreement and that it was intended that the homestead should be bound for the entire indebtedness of all parties, reformation should not have been decreed. Wigmore on Ev. \u00b6 2416." }, "file_name": "0371-01", "first_page_order": 393, "last_page_order": 395 }