Grayling Lumber Co. v. Ebbitt
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from Desha Chancery Court; Zachariah T. Wood, Chancellor; 1. The appellees purchased the west half of section 13 and by mistake described it in the deed as the east half. 2. There were no false or fraudulent representations by appellant. Hoyt was appellees’ agent and not appellant’s. 57 Fed. 753; 6 Cyc.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Desha Chancery Court; Zachariah T. Wood, Chancellor; 1. The appellees purchased the west half of section 13 and by mistake described it in the deed as the east half. 2. There were no false or fraudulent representations by appellant. Hoyt was appellees’ agent and not appellant’s. 57 Fed. 753; 6 Cyc. A. 539; 53 Ark. 208; 105 Id. 446. Agency can not be established by statements of the alleged agent to third parties nor by his acts and declarations. 33 Ark. 251; 44 Id. 213; 46 Id. 228; 85 Id. 252; 96 Id. 505: 93 Id. 600. Appellant is not responsible for any fraudulent representations…
1Opinion of the CourtHumphreys, J.
Appellant, Grayling Lumber Company, instituted suit against appellees in the Desha chancery court to reform a deed executed by it on November 30, 1914, to said, appellees, so as to convey the west half of section 13, township 13 south, range 2 west, instead of the east half thereof. The complaint alleged in substance that the deed in question was a quitclaim deed executed to appellees until it could obtain a release of the west half of said section from a mortgage it had theretofore executed to the Security Trust Company, at which time it had agreed to execute a warranty deed for the west…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Grismore v. UtleySupreme Court of Arkansas · 1923
- Zimmerman v. Grolle and De BoerHawaii Supreme Court · 1948