Fegan v. Anderson
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from Washington Chancery Court; T. H. Humphreys, Chancellor; 1. The findings of the chancellor are persuasive merely. Here they are clearly against the preponderance of the testimony. Fraud is never presumed, hut must he proven by clear and convincing testimony.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Washington Chancery Court; T. H. Humphreys, Chancellor; 1. The findings of the chancellor are persuasive merely. Here they are clearly against the preponderance of the testimony. Fraud is never presumed, hut must he proven by clear and convincing testimony. No fraud, misrepresentations or deceit were proven. 11 Ark. 66; 19 Id. 528; 47 Id. 164; 71 Id. 91; 95 Id. 375; 101 Id. 608; 112 Id. 499; 116 Id. 443. 2. The testimony shows that the deeds were actually delivered and the trade completed. The deeds were good, if not acknowledged. 30 Ark. 111. 3. Failure to stamp does not render a…
1Opinion of the CourtMcCulloch, C. J.
Appellees owned a farm in Matagorda County, Texas, containing 149.10 acres of the value of about $8,000, and on June 29,1916, they entered into an agreement with appellants to exchange said farm for two tracts of land in Washington County, Arkansas, containing in the aggregate 558 acres, then owned by appellants. Deeds were exchanged between the parties conveying to each the respective lands to be received. The contention of appellees is that the deeds were not delivered in consummation of the agreement, but merely to be held by each party for the inspection of their respective attorneys and…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Carpenter v. StrangeSupreme Court of the United States · 1891
- Neely v. RembertSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1902
- English v. NorthSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1914
- Pillow v. KingSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1892
3Cited by1 opinion
- Nakdimen v. BrazilSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1917