Swaim v. Beakley
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from Lonoke-Chancery Court; John E. Martmecm, Chancellor; 1. Whether the instrument be a deed with a condition precedent or subsequent. McAlister was not in default until a proper deed was tendered and performance demanded. 30 Cyc. 730; 73 Ark. 491; 44 Id. 492. 2. A tender was made -and a deed demanded by plaintiff and the 'chancellor’s decree is against the evidence.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Lonoke-Chancery Court; John E. Martmecm, Chancellor; 1. Whether the instrument be a deed with a condition precedent or subsequent. McAlister was not in default until a proper deed was tendered and performance demanded. 30 Cyc. 730; 73 Ark. 491; 44 Id. 492. 2. A tender was made -and a deed demanded by plaintiff and the 'chancellor’s decree is against the evidence. The testimony shows . that McAlister abandoned the trade 'and never tendered the money nor demanded a deed. He was guilty of gross laches- and comes too late. He forfeited 'all interest in the land. 36 Cyc. 721; 103 Ark.…
1Opinion of the Court
HART, J.,
(after stating the facts). The deed from Kathleen Bealdey and N. B. Beakley to O. W. McAlister was executed on condition that if McAlister failed to pay for the land at the time recited in the deed, the conveyance should be void and the lands should revert to Kathleen Beakley and Etta Louise Jackson.
In Cooper v. Green, 28 Ark. 48, it was held that conditions precedent are, as the term implies, such as must happen before the estate dependent upon them can arise or be enlarged, while conditions subsequent are such as, when they do happen, defeat an estate already vested.
In the present…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Moore v. SharpeSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1909
- Cooper v. GreenSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1872
3Cited by1 opinion
- Goodwin v. TysonSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1925