Cannon v. Jackson
Supreme Court of Arkansas
APPEAL from Seveir Circuit Court iu Chancery. Hon. H. B. Stuart, Circuit Judge. Fraud is never presumed but mast be proven. Circumstances of mere suspicion leading to no certain results are not a sufficient ground to establish a fraud.
Read the full summary
APPEAL from Seveir Circuit Court iu Chancery. Hon. H. B. Stuart, Circuit Judge. Fraud is never presumed but mast be proven. Circumstances of mere suspicion leading to no certain results are not a sufficient ground to establish a fraud. A fraud-lent intent will never be imputed to an act that may have as well accrued from a good as a bad motive. 9 Ark., 452;' 31 Ark., 556; 23 Ark, 123. The certificate of acknowledgment is alone sufficient to sustain the deed in opposition to all such testimony as was offered to show fraud. The testimony of Cannon, corroborated by other witnesses, shows that…
1Opinion of the CourtEakin, J.
The appellee, Susan Jackson, filed this bill against Cannon for rescisión of a deed executed by her to Cannon in April, 1879, for certain tracts of land described as the N. W. ¼ of the N. E. ¼ and the N. W. ¼ of the S. E. ¼ of section 13; and the S. W. ¼ of the N. E. ¼, and the S. E. ¼ of the N. W. ¼ of section 24, in T. 9, South of Range 30 West. She charges that she is illiterate, cannot read nor write, and that the deed was never read to her; that she did not know that she was executing a deed, and never meant to; that she did intend to give a mortgage for a small sum of money, about…
2Cited by2 opinions
- McCall v. BushnellSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1889
- Rice-Stix Dry Goods Co. v. MontgomerySupreme Court of Arkansas · 1924