James, Holcombe & Rainwater v. Furr
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from Desha Chancery Court; Z. T. Wood, Chancellor; On appeals, chancery causes are tried de novo, and this court considers only competent testimony. 124 Ark. 74. Two witnesses testified that the “landing field” was the subject of trade, and one, Furr, stated that it was not. The great preponderance of the testimony sustains the plaintiffs.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Desha Chancery Court; Z. T. Wood, Chancellor; On appeals, chancery causes are tried de novo, and this court considers only competent testimony. 124 Ark. 74. Two witnesses testified that the “landing field” was the subject of trade, and one, Furr, stated that it was not. The great preponderance of the testimony sustains the plaintiffs. The evidence is clear and unequivocal and convincing. 45 Atl. 612; 110 N. W. 840. At any rate, the evidence of plaintiffs preponderated. 4 Atl. 781; 52 S. W. 1007.' There is no allegation of fraud, and the proof is not clear, unequivocal and decisive…
1Opinion of the CourtSmith, J.
This suit was brought to enforce the specific performance of a contract to convey land, but is, in effect, and, in fact, a suit to reform a description contained in a deed, and the suit is so treated by the parties. The tract of land in controversy is known by the parties as the “Medford Landing Field,” and contains 18% acres,, and is further described as that part of the northwest quarter, northeast quarter section 1, township 9 south, range 3 west, east of the bayou. Each of the parties to this litigation owned other lands besides those conveyed in the deed here sought to be reformed, and…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- McGuigan v. GainesSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1903
3Cited by4 opinions
- Beneaux v. SparksSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1920
- Berard v. FitzpatrickSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1918
- Gunnels v. MacHenSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1948
- McBride v. McBrideSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1945