Holt v. Moore
Supreme Court of Arkansas
APPEAL from Pulaski Chancery Court, Hon. D. W. Carroll, Chancellor. I. The deed was obtained by fraud and undue influence of the husband of appellant and, void. 10 Minn., 427,448 ; 2 Wal., 524 ; 5 111., 521; 6 Minn., 25 ; 24 Iowa, 509 ; 18 Md., 305 ; 1 Smith (Penn.), 309 ; Bish. on Married Women, 2 vol., sec. 419, et seq. The price paid was inadequate, and shows fraud or unfair dealing.
Read the full summary
APPEAL from Pulaski Chancery Court, Hon. D. W. Carroll, Chancellor. I. The deed was obtained by fraud and undue influence of the husband of appellant and, void. 10 Minn., 427,448 ; 2 Wal., 524 ; 5 111., 521; 6 Minn., 25 ; 24 Iowa, 509 ; 18 Md., 305 ; 1 Smith (Penn.), 309 ; Bish. on Married Women, 2 vol., sec. 419, et seq. The price paid was inadequate, and shows fraud or unfair dealing. Story’s Rq., vol. 1, secs. 244-250. The conversations and statements of Holt, appellant’s husband, were incompetent and should have been excluded. Greenleaf Bv., vol. 1, secs. 185 and 341 and note; 8 Jones L.…
1Opinion of the CourtEakin, J.
Mary E. Holt, a married woman, applied by bill in Chancery Court, to cancel a deed of land, which,, with her husband, she had executed, in accordance with the-statutory form, to the appellee, Moore. The certificate of her acknowledgment, before a Justice of the Peace, is full and sufficient.
She alleges that the conveyance was procured by the fraud of Moore, in operating upon the fears of her husband, to-induce him to leave the country to avoid a criminal prosecution ; and by the coercion and undue influence of her husband, to induce her to consént, of which defendant was cognizant. She also…
2Cited by5 opinions
- Patton v. RandolphSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1939
- Rice-Stix Dry Goods Co. v. MontgomerySupreme Court of Arkansas · 1924
- Holman v. KirbySupreme Court of Arkansas · 1939
- Hill v. YarboroughSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1896
- Hill v. HiteU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Arkansas · 1897