Zeigler v. Daniel
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from Garland Chancery Court; E. H. Wootton, Special Chancellor; 1. The deed was never intended as a gift to J. W. Daniel, but as a resulting trust for T. R. Daniel. 2. T. R. Daniel did not act as agent of his nephew J. W. 3. The mere fact of plaintiff filing a suit, or petition, in the probate court, without summons or notice, was not notice. 4. Under section 5149, Kirby’s Digest, there was no lis pendens notice. 183 S. W. 955; 184 Id. 852. 5. Plaintiff is estopped.…
Read the full summary
Appeal from Garland Chancery Court; E. H. Wootton, Special Chancellor; 1. The deed was never intended as a gift to J. W. Daniel, but as a resulting trust for T. R. Daniel. 2. T. R. Daniel did not act as agent of his nephew J. W. 3. The mere fact of plaintiff filing a suit, or petition, in the probate court, without summons or notice, was not notice. 4. Under section 5149, Kirby’s Digest, there was no lis pendens notice. 183 S. W. 955; 184 Id. 852. 5. Plaintiff is estopped. 6. The rents and purchase money have been marshalled and paid out. 107 Ark. 405, etc. Cites 83 Ark. 416; 102 Id. 324; 183…
1Opinion of the CourtHumphreys, J.
This suit was instituted on November 30, 1914, in the Garland County Chancery Court by appellee against appellant, to cancel a deed executed by Mary S. Zeigler, administratrix of the estate of T. R. Daniel, deceased, conveying to Benjamin W. Zeigler the following described real estate in Garland County, Arkansas, towit: the west half of the southeast quarter, the northeast quarter of the southeast quarter and the southeast quarter of the northeast quarter in section 32„ township 2 south, range 17 west; and for the cancellation of a mortgage executed by Benjamin "W. Zeigler and Mary S.…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Geren v. CaldareraSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1911
3Cited by3 opinions
- Drummond v. BatsonSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1924
- Jordan v. HargisSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1923
- Shouse v. ScovillSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1940