Rowland v. McAlester Fuel Company

My study of this case leads me to these conclusions:(1) J. "W. Rowland has lost his interest by reason of estoppel, so, as to him, I agree that the case should be affirmed.(2) 0. A. Rowland and R. A. Rowland should' recover, since there was no parol gift of the lands to A. B. Rowland and M. M. Rowland; and an estate by entirety never came into existence. This second conclusion is the reason for my dissent; and I now discuss this second conclusion :

Some of our cases concerning a parol gift of land are: Young v. Crawford, 82 Ark. 33, 100 S. W. 87; Bostleman v. Henkle, 152 Ark. 628, 239 S. W.…