Wren v. Green

The purpose of my dissent is to call attention to the conflict between Cole v. Burnett, 119 Ark. 386, 177 S. W. 1146, and Henry v. Texas Company, 201 Ark. 996, 147 S. W. 2d 742, on the rule of estoppel by deed.

The real question in the case at bar, as I see it, is whether Mrs. Underwood can be heard to say that at the time of the deed to Mr. Green she and her husband had already conveyed part of the minerals to Hindman. Mrs. Underwood so testified, and was supported by her daughter. With Mrs. Underwood’s testimony considered, I think appellant should prevail for Mrs. Underwood’s testimony…