Bird v. Jones
Supreme Court of Arkansas
APPEAL from Lonoke Circuit Court in Chancery, Hon. C. B. Moore, Special Judge. Mrs. Simmons was not an innocent purchaser for value. Bird died in possession, and his family, since his death,, continued in possession of the land.
Read the full summary
APPEAL from Lonoke Circuit Court in Chancery, Hon. C. B. Moore, Special Judge. Mrs. Simmons was not an innocent purchaser for value. Bird died in possession, and his family, since his death,, continued in possession of the land. The purchaser of land in possession of a third party, takós it subject to all the-equities between the vendor and the party in possession. 31 Ark., 85 ; 30 Ark., 417 ; 29 Ark., 563. Jones’ testimony as to transactions and conversations-with Nathan Bird, was clearly inadmissible. Sec. 2 of the Schedule to the Constitution o/1874. Bird had the legal title at the time of…
1Opinion of the CourtEnglish, C. J.
I. The first question presented for decision in this case is, whether so much of the deposition of the ■appellee, William N. Jones, as relates to a transaction with, and statements of Nathan Bird, deceased, under whom appellants claim the lands in controversy, was competent evidence. The facts on which this question arises are substantially as follows:
Nathan Bird died intestate, in Lonoke county, eleventh August, 1873, leaving him surviving, Eliza, his wife, four adult children — Philip M., John H., Victoria and Alvorado E. (intermarried with John M. Barnett), and two minor children — Charles…
2Cited by13 opinions
- Thalheimer v. LockertSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1905
- Sewell v. UmstedSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1925
- Blair v. HennessyCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1911
- Bradbury v. JohnsonSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1912
- Chickasaw Loan & Trust Co. v. MillsSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1916
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.