Walden v. Blassingame
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from White Chancery Court; John E. Mar-tineau, Chancellor; 1. The evidence shows that the deed from John R. Walden to his wife, Julia, was a forgery and a fraud, and hence appellants must prevail. 2. This suit is not barred, as it was brought within apt time after the fraud or forgery was discovered.
Read the full summary
Appeal from White Chancery Court; John E. Mar-tineau, Chancellor; 1. The evidence shows that the deed from John R. Walden to his wife, Julia, was a forgery and a fraud, and hence appellants must prevail. 2. This suit is not barred, as it was brought within apt time after the fraud or forgery was discovered. Kirby’s Digest, § 5077: 61 Ark. 527; 92 Id. 618-621; 108 Id. 342. 3. It is competent for witnesses to' testify as to what a deceased person may have said, they being third persons, not parties to the suit. 70 Ark. 542; 46 Id. 306. The testimony of David A. Blassingame was admissible. 4.…
1Opinion of the CourtHumphreys, J.
Appellants, collateral heirs of John R. Walden, deceased, brought suit in the White Chancery Court to recover the E. % of the S. E. % of Sec. 14; S. E. %, S. W. 14 of Sec. 13; and an undivided one-half interest in the W. % of the S. W. Sec. 13, T. 6 N., R. 10 W., in White County, Arkansas, from appellees. The vital issue presented by the pleadings and evidence to be determined by this court on ele novo trial is whether the deed of date June 22, 1893, of John R. Walden to Julia Walden, his wife, is a genuine or forged instrument. Appellants claim title to said land by inheritance from John R.…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Polk v. BrownSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1915
- Nevada County Bank v. GeeSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1917
3Cited by4 opinions
- Brown v. BrownSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1918
- Swinton v. CuffmanSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1919
- St. Louis Union Trust Company v. HammansSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1942
- Guyot v. FletcherSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1951