Bowman v. Pettit
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from Arkansas Chancery Court. James F. Robinson, Chancellor. There was no partnership. The parties were simply tenants in common. Sand. & H. Dig.,.§ 704; 31 Ark. 580. The parol agreement to perfect title could not not give any lien on the lands as against a Iona fide purchaser.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Arkansas Chancery Court. James F. Robinson, Chancellor. There was no partnership. The parties were simply tenants in common. Sand. & H. Dig.,.§ 704; 31 Ark. 580. The parol agreement to perfect title could not not give any lien on the lands as against a Iona fide purchaser. Sand. & H. Dig., § 3469. Pettit's possession was the possession of both. 100 U. S. 37. When a good consideration passes from the grantee to the grantor, and he buys in good faith, a conveyance will be upheld. 46 Ark. 542, 551; 49 Ark. 20; 39 Ark. 75. There must be a fraudulent intent on the part of both parties.…
1Opinion of the CourtHughes, J.
This is a suit in which appellee seeks to partition a ranch jointly owned by him and Husted Osterhaudt, and to charge Osterhaudt’s half interest with half of the money expended by appellee in the defense of the title and in the repair of the ranch. Appellee alleged that he and Osterhaudt were partners in the purchase of the ranch; that, in pursuance of their agreement, he (appellee) took charge and possession of the ranch and of the defense of several suits which were instituted against them by parties holding tax titles; that he expended in looking after and taking care of the ranch, in…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Cocke v. ClausenSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1900
3Cited by1 opinion
- Carlyle v. JaskiewiczAppellate Court of Illinois · 1984